Research  Publications  of  the  University  of  JVIinnesota 


Studies  m  Language  and  Literature 
Numoer  8 


AN  ESSAY  TO^VARD  A  HISTORY  OF 
SHAKESPEARE  IN  DENMARK 

BY 

MARTIN  B.  RUUD,  PL.D. 

Assistant  Professor  of  Rhetoric  in  the  University  of  Minnesota 


Puhlished  hy  tTie  University  of  J^innesota 
7^inneaj>olis,  February,  1920 


RESliARCH   PUBLICATIONS 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF   MINNESOTA 

These  publications  contain  the  results  of  research  work  from  various  depart- 
ments of  the  University  and  are  oflFered  for  exchange  with  universities,  scientific 
societies,  and  other  institutions.  Papers  will  be  published  as  separate  monograplis 
numbered  in  several  series.  There  is  no  stated  interval  of  publication.  Application 
for  any  of  these  publications  should  be  made  to  the  University  Librarian. 

STUDIES    IN    THE   SOCIAL   SCIEN'CES 

!.  Thompson  and  Warper,  Social  and  Economic  Survey  of  a  Rural  Township 
m  oouthern  Minnesota.     1913.     $0.50. 

2.  Matthias  Nordberg  Orfield,  Federal  Land  Grants  to  the  States,  with 
Special  Reference  to  Minnesota.     1915.     $1.00. 

3.  Edward  Van  Dyke  Robinson.  Early  Economic  Conditions  and  the  Develop- 
ment of  Agriculture  in  Minnesota.     1915.     $1.50. 

4.  L.  D.  H.  Weld  and  Others,  Studies  in  the  Marketing  of  Farm  Products. 
1915.     $0.50. 

5.  Ben  Palmer,  Sw.-inn,  T,:,n(1  Drainage,  with  Special  Reference  to  Minnesota. 
1915.     $0.50. 

6.  Albert  Erni-..-.!  ji.^k.-.,  iaJian-White  Amalgamation:  An  Anthropometric 
Study.     1916.     $0.50. 

7.  C.  D.  Allin,  a  History  of  the  Tariff  Relations  of  the  Australian  Colonies. 
1918.     $0.75. 

8.  Frances  H.  Relf,  The  Petition  of  Right.     1917.^ 

9.  Gilbert  L.  Wilson,  Agriculture  of  the  Hidatsa  maians:  An  Indian  Inter- 
pretation.    1917.     $0.75. 

10.  NoTESTEiN  and  Relp~,  Editors,  Commons  Debates  for  1629.     In  press. 

11.  Raymond  A.  Kent,  A  Study  of  State  Aid  to  Public  Schools  in  Minnesota. 
1918.     $1.00. 

12.  Rupert   C.   Lodge,   The   Meaning  and   Function  of   Simple    Modes  in  the 
Philosophy  of  John  Locke.     1918.     $0.75. 

13.  Florence  R.  Curtis,   The  Libraries  of  the  American  State  and  National 
Institutions  for  Defectives,  Dependents,  and  Delinquents.     1918.     $0.50. 

14.  Louis  A.  Boettiger,  Armenian  Legends  and  Festivals.     1920.     $0.75. 

STUDIES   IN    THE    PHYSICAL   SCIENCES    AND    MATHEMATICS 

1.  Fkankforter  A-ND  Frarv,  Equilibria  in  Systems  Containing  Alcohols,  Salts, 
and  Water.     1912.     $0.50. 

2.  Frankforter  and  Kritchevsky,  A  New  Phase  of  Catalysis.     1914.     $&[m> 

(Continued  inside  back  cover) 


,   xnoians: 


ResearcK  Putlications  of  the  University  of  Minnesota 


Studies  m  Language  and  Literature 
Number  8 


AN  ESSAY  TOWARD  A  HISTORY  OF 
SHAKESPEARE  IN  DENMARK 

BY 

MARTIN  B.  RUUD,  PL.D. 

Assistant  Professor  of  Rhetoric  in  the  University  of  Minnesota 


PuhJt'thed  hy  the  University  of  J^innesota 
Minneapolis,  Fehruary,  1920 


Copyright  1920 

BY    THE 

University  of  Minnesota 


LIBRARY 
P  1?  CmrVERSITY  OF  CALIPORNTiT 

'    'X^    /  ^^^'^^  BARBARA 

an/ 


PREFACE 

The  present  study,  like  my  Shakespeare  in  Norway^  to  which  it  is 
properly  a  complement,  is  an  attempt  to  trace  the  history, of  Shakespeare 
in  Denmark  as  it  is  found  in  translations,  criticism,  and  stage  performances. 
I  am  aware  that  in  thus  limiting  myself  to  external  history,  I  am  evading 
the  most  interesting  part  of  such  an  investigation — the  tracing  of  Shake- 
speare's influence  on  Danish  literature.  That,  however,  can  hardly  be  done 
till  we  know  something  of  the  ways  by  which  a  knowledge  of  Shakespeare 
came  to  Denmark  and  the  impress  which  the  plays  made  upon  Danish 
criticism  and  stage  history.  I  have  therefore  passed  over  even  such  well 
ascertained  facts  as  the  influence  of  Shakespeare  on  Ewald,  Oehlenschleeger, 
and  Christian  Hviid  Bredahl,  except  so  far  as  it  may  be  inferred  from 
their  own  critical  dicta. 

That  there  are  gaps  and  errors,  I  am  well  aware.  It  could  hardly  be 
otherwise  in  a  field  so  little  explored.  I  venture  to  point  out  also  that  the 
monograph  has  been  written  thousands  of  miles  from  the  sources  at  a  time 
when  the  lines  of  communication  have  been  worse  than  uncertain.  It  has 
been  impossible,  therefore,  to  verify  many  statements,  or  to  subject  others 
to  a  new  scrutiny. 

My  thanks  are  due  to  the  American-Scandinavian  Foundation  and  to 
the  University  of  Chicago,  whose  generous  support  made  my  studies 
abroad  possible,  to  the  authorities  of  the  Royal  and  University  libraries 
at  Copenhagen  for  their  courtesy  and  helpfulness,  and  to  my  wife,  who 
relieved  me  of  most  of  the  drudgery  of  copying  materials. 

M.  B.  R. 

The  University  of  Minnesota 
October,  1918 


CONTENTS 

Pages 

Chapter  I.        Translations  of  Shakespeare 1-44 

Chapter  II.       Shakespearean  criticism  in  Denmark 45-83 

Chapter  III.     Shakespeare  on  the  Danish  stage 84-113 

Appendix .     114-16 


AN  ESSAY  TOWARD  A  HISTORY   OF   SHAKESPEARE 

IN  DENMARK 

CHAPTER  I 
TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE 


We  shall  probably  never  know  when  Shakespeare  first  came  to  Den- 
mark. That  his  name  at  least  was  known  to  scores  of  young  Danish 
scholars  who  visited  England  in  the  early  years  of  the  eighteenth  century 
is  probable  enough;  Holberg  must  have  heard  of  him,  and  one  of  Holberg's 
contemporaries  definitely  mentions  his  name.  Other  statements  are 
unsafe.  Toward  the  middle  of  the  century,  as  we  shall  see,  there  is  evidence 
of  fuller  knowledge,  even  of  real  understanding,  but  before  1777,  when 
Johannes  Boye  published  his  translation  of  Hamlet,^  the  thread  is  uncertain 
and  tenuous. 

Boye  was  bom  in  1756,  matriculated  at  the  university  in  Copenhagen 
in  1772,  and  devoted  himself  eagerly  to  the  study  of  philosophy  and  modern 
languages.  In  later  life,  indeed,  he  was  to  gain  a  certain  distinction  as  a 
political  economist  and  as  the  protagonist  of  the  old  Enlightenment  against 
the  new  philosophy  of  Kant.  But  his  political  economy  was  antiquated, 
and  his  philosophy,  even  as  he  wrote,  was  dead.  Boye  lives,  like  so  many 
others,  not  through  his  magnum  opus,  but  through  the  accidental  fact  that 
he  was  the  first  Danish  translator  of  Shakespeare. 

The  translation  is  in  prose,  and  the  reader  may  be  curious  to  see  what 
he  did  with  Shakespeare's  verse  in  a  prose  so  tmformed  and  heavy  as  was 
that  of  Danish  before  the  wizardry  of  Jens  Baggesen  had  taught  his  coimtry- 
men  how  to  use  it  with  grace  and  flexibility. 

O!  at  dette  alt  for  haarde  haarde  Eaod  vilde  smelte,  toe  op  og  henflyde  i  Dug! 
eller  at  den  Evige  ey  havde  stilled  sin  Torden  mod  Selvmorderen !  O  Gud !  O  Gud ! 
hvorlangvilligt,  slset,  afnytted  og  ubrugelig  er  all  denne  Verdens  Gode  for  mig !  O  Fyh  I 
O  Fyh !  den  er  en  uluged  Hauge,  der  skyder  i  Froe,  fyldt  med  lutter  uhyre  vaextgiaerrige 
Ting. — At  det  skulde  gaae  saa  vidt !  kun  to  maaneder  dod !  ney  ikke  saa  laenge !  ikke 
to — Saa  ypperlig  en  Konge,  mod  denne  som  Hyperion  mod  en  Skovtrold:  Saa 
kiaerlig  mod  min  Moder,  at  han  ey  taalte  at  Vindene  blaeste  paa  hendes  Ansigt. 
O  Himmel  og  Jord!  hvorfor  skal  jeg  erindre  dette?  Hun  hang  om  ham,  som  om 
Begiaerlighed  voxte  ved  det  den  nod;  dog  inden  en  Maaned!  o!  lad  mig  ey  taenke 
derpaa — Svaghed,  dit  Navn  er  Qvinde !  En  lille  Maaned ! — eller  forend  de  Skoe  vare 
gamle,  med  hvilke  hun  fulgte  min  arme  Faders  Liig,  som  Niobe,  lutter  Taarer — Og 
hun,  just  hun — O  Gud!  et  ufornuftigt  Dyr  vilde  have  sorget  laengere — gifter  sig  med 
min  Farbroder,  men  ey  liigere  min  Fader,  end  jeg  Hercules.  Inden  een  Maaned — 
hendes  Oyne  endnu  rode  af  Taarer.     0 !  forbandede  Hastighed,  at  fahre  med  saadan 

»  Hamlet,  Prinz  af  Danmark.    Oversat  af  Johannes  Boye.    Xiobenhavn.    1777. 


2  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

Ficrdighed  til  blodskiaendig  -lEgteseng.     Det  er  ey  godt,  og  kan  ey  heller  give  Godt 
af  sig.    O  brist  mit  Hierte,  thi  jeg  maae  nu  tie.* 

Perhaps  one  other  specimen  should  be  given,  and  I  choose,  for  obvious 
reasons,  the  great  soliloquy,  than  which  there  can  be  no  severer  test  of  a 
translator's  powers: 

At  vaere  eller  ikke  vaere,  det  er  Sporsmaalet — om  det  er  aedlere  at  taale  en  grum 
Skiacbnes  Piile  og  Slynger  med  ubevaegeligt  Sind,  eller  at  gribe  til  Vaaben  mod  en 
H^r  af  Ulykker  og  ved  Modstand  ende  dem — At  doe — at  sove — ei  meer;  og  som  ved 
en  Sovn  at  ende  all  den  Hiertevee  og  Livets  tusinde  Anstod,  sora  ere  Kiodets  Ar- 
vedeel;  det  er  en  Ende  man  bor  onske  andaegtig.  At  doe — at  sove — at  sove — maaske 
at  dromme;  ah  der  er  Knuden — thi  hvad  Dromme  der  monne  komme  i  Dodens  Sovn 
naar  vi  bar  slidt  os  fra  denne  dodelige  AUarm,  maae  holde  os  tilbage.  Dette  er 
Udsigten,  som  txanger  os  til  at  leve  et  langt  elsendigt  Liv.  Thi  hvo  ville  taale  Tiidens 
Svobe  og  Spot;  Undertrykkerens  Uraetfserdighed,  den  Stoltes  Foragt,  afslagen  Kia;r- 
ligheds  Qvaal,  Lovens  Tilsidesaettelse,  de  Maegtiges  uforskammede  Hovmod,  og 
de  Foedstod  taalmodig  Fortieneste  maae  tage  af  den  Uvaerdige;  naar  man  med  en 
usel  Dolk  kunne  forskaffe  sig  Hvile?  hvo  ville  under  svare  Byrder  sukke  og  svede 
et  moysommeligt  Liv  igiennem,  naar  ikke  Villien  blev  tvungen  af  Frygt  for  noget 
efter  Doden  (det  skiulte  Land,  hvorfra  ingen  Reysende  vender  tilbage)  og  gior  at  vi 
bellere  bser  de  Ulykker  vi  har,  end  Aj'^er  til  andre  vi  ikke  kiender?  Saaledes  gior 
Tvivl  OS  alle  feige;  og  saaledes  besmittes  vor  Beslutnings  naturlige  Farve  af  Eftertaenk- 
nings  morke  Anstrog,  og  saa  bliver  vigtige  Forsaetter  stodte  tilbage  af  denne 
Udsigt,  og  kommer  aldrig  til  Handling.^ 

Malthe  Conrad  Bruun,  who  never  said  or  did  things  by  halves, 
pronounced  this  translation  so  bad  that  one  could  fairly  say  of  it  that  it 
is  no  translation  at  all.'*  It  is  prosy,  no  doubt,  and  without  the  slightest 
suggestion  of  imaginative  power,  but  the  sense  is  reasonably  clear;  Shake- 
speare's meaning  is  correctly  given,  even  though  the  poetry  is  fled.  Too 
often,  indeed,  Boye  takes  refuge  from  the  difficulties  of  his  task  in  the 
blankest  kind  of  paraphrase.  Note,  for  example,  how  flat  is  his  rendering 
of  Shakespeare's  lines : 

Ere  yet  the  salt  of  most  unrighteous  tears 
Had  left  the  flushing  in  her  galled  eyes. 
(Hendes  Oyne  endnu  rode  af  Taarer) 

Or,  when  Shakespeare  has  it 


.    .    .    there's  the  respect 
That  makes  calamity  of  so  long  life; 


Boye  paraphrases: 


Dette  er  Udsigten  som  tvinger  os  til  at  leve  et  langt 
elendigt  Liv — 


'  Hamlet,  Print  af  Danmark  pp.  22-24. 
*lbid.  pp.  124-26. 
•  Stada,  1796.  p.  122. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  3 

as  if  Shakespeare  had  written : 

.    .    .    there's  the  consideration  that  makes  us 
live  a  long  and  wretched  life. 

Shakespeare: 

the  insolence  of  office. 
Boye: 

de  Masgtiges  uforskammede  Hovraod. 

Some  glosses,  nevertheless,  which  seem  to  us  today  downright  blunders, 
are  not  blunders  at  all,  for  Boye  was  simply  following  the  standard  com- 
mentators. Thus,  farther  along  in  the  play,  (Boye,  III,  8,  Variorum,  III,  2) 
where  the  Danish  translation  has  the  phrase — ''sort  som  en  Solsort"  (black 
as  a  blackbird)  for  our  standard  ''black  like  a  weasel," — the  translator  is 
faithftil  to  Theobald's  text  of  1773,^  which  we  know  he  used.^  At  times, 
too,  the  style  is  amorphous  and  ungainly;  for  example,  the  last  lines  of 
"At  vsere  eller  ilcke  vaere." 

But  when  all  is  said  and  done,  the  fact  remains  that  Boye's  work  is  a' 
distinctly  creditable  performance — intelligent,  readable,  and  free  from  that 
wooden  slavishness  which  is  the  curse  of  translations.  It  was  well  received. 
Lcerde  Efterretninger,  the  oldest  of  contemporary  critical  periodicals, 
honored  it  with  an  extended  if  not  very  significant  review.  The  critic  gives 
a  two-page  summary  of  the  plot,  criticises  the  diction,  and  remarks  rather 
naively  that  the  play  is  full  of  anachronisms.^  On  the  other  hand,  Nye 
Kritiske  Tilskuer  gives  a  long,  searching,  and  extremely  laudatory  review.* 
After  a  rhapsody  about  the  wonderful,  the  unrivalled  Shakespeare,  the 
writer  declares  that  translations  of  his  work  should  ever  be  welcome.  The 
undertaking,  however,  is  a  daring  one.  "A  young  compatriot  has  ventured 
to  give  us  this  elevated,  difficult,  in  many  respects  this  well-nigh  untrans- 
latable poet,  in  Danish."  The  result,  he  continues,  is,  on  the  whole  good, 
and  suggests  much  of  the  splendor  of  the  original.  By  way  of  illustration, 
he  quotes  a  part  of  the  soliloquy  "To  be  or  not  to  be"  and  Hamlet's  speech 
to  the  players.  The  review  is  not  all  praise;  the  author  criticises  sharply 
many  of  Boye's  renderings,  suggests  improvements,  and  calls  attention 
to  certain  omissions  which  seem  to  point  back  to  a  defective  original. 
The  point  is  not  well  taken.  Boye  has  omitted  nothing;  but  his  manner 
of  paraphrasing  instead  of  translating  often  makes  it  appear  that  some- 
thing in  the  original  has  been  slurred  over.     The  article  closes  with  a 

»  Vide  letter  of  Boye's  great-grandson,  Provst  M.  A.  Boye,  in  Poliiiken  newspaper  (Copenhagen), 
May  27,  1913.  Provst  Boye  says:  "I  have  in  my  possession  the  edition  of  Shakespeare  which  he  used, 
Theobald's  of  1773,  in  eight  volumes." 

•  Theobald,  following  Pope,  reads  "black  like  an  ouzle."    Cf.  Hamlet  (New  Variorum  Ed.)  1:272,  note. 

'  Kiobenhavnske  llflerrelninger  om  Larde  Sager,  October  9,  1777. 

8  Volume  for  1777,  nos.  23  and  24. 


4  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

sketcli  of  Shakespeare's  life  which  shows  a  good  acquaintance  with  results 
of  contemporary  scholarship. 

There  is  nothing  here  to  suggest  that  note  of  mingled  condescension 
and  hostility  whicli  characterized,  for  example,  Voltaire's  critical  dicta 
on  Shakespeare.  The  deficiency,  however,  is  more  than  made  good  by  the 
article  in  Nye  Kritiske  Journal.^  The  opening  is  amicable  enough.  Hamlet 
should  interest  Danish  readers,  since  the  characters  are  Danes,  though 
certainly  it  is  plain  that,  save  for  the  carousing,  for  which  Danes  were 
long  famous,  Shakespeare  had  in  mind  rather  Englishmen  of  his  own  day. 
The  worship  of  Shakespeare  in  England  and  Germany,  says  the  reviewer, 
goes  to  the  length  of  idolatry,  but  whether  patriotism  or  literary  fashions 
or  a  real  imderstanding  of  the  poet  has  led  the  translator  to  his  work,  he 
does  not  know.  He  finds  much  to  admire  in  Shakespeare — elevation  of 
thought  and  richness  of  fancy — and  he  quotes,  as  a  particularly  notable 
passage,  the  dialogue  between  Hamlet  and  the  king  (IV,  3,  21-31) :  "Your 
worm  is  your  Emperor  for  diet,"  etc.  "For  the  rest  we  are  very  far  from 
joining  the  chorus  of  praise  in  which  Shakespeare  is  exalted  and  lauded 
as  the  paragon  of  dramaturgists.  He  is  the  wildest  and  most  untamed 
genius  one  can  imagine,  in  whom  is  found  in  full  measure  that  mingling 
of  lunacy  and  wisdom  which  one  of  the  ancients  demanded  in  a  genius. 
One  might  almost  say  of  him  what  he  said  of  the  world : 

.    .    .    'tis  an  unweeded  garden 
That  grows  to  seed;  things  rank  and  gross  in  nature 
Possess  it  merely." 

The  translation,  as  a  whole,  is  praised ;  but  the  writer  would  not  have 
been  a  true  son  of  the  eighteenth  century  if  he  had  missed  this  opportunity 
for  minute  verbal  criticism.  Thus  he  reads  Poleaxe,  not,  with  Theobald 
and  Boye,  Polak.  It  is  possible  that  he  is  right ;  the  only  trouble  is  that  he 
insists  upon  being  dogmatic  about  it.  In  one  instance,  however,  he  catches 
Boye  tripping.    Boye  translates: 

A  double  blessing  is  a  double  grace; 

Occasion  smiles  upon  a  second  leave  (I,  3,  53-54) 

as  follows:  "See  her  kommer  min  Fader.  Jeg  vil  anden  Gang  faa  hans 
Velsignelse.  Jo  storre  Tilladelse,  des  hehageligere  er  Leiligheden/'  Which, 
as  the  writer  says,  is  complete  nonsense. 


Boye  had  reason  to  feel  satisfied  with  his  work  and  with  the  recep- 
tion which  the  public  had  given  it.  He  did  not,  however,  carry  it  forward. 
The  second  Danish  translation  of  a  play  of  Shakespeare's  was  Rosen- 
feldt's  Macbeth  of   1787.     This  book  has  completely  disappeared  from 

•Volume  for  1777,  pp.  221  ff. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  5 

Danish  public  libraries,  and  but  for  a  review  by  J.  C.  Tode  in  Kritik  og 
Antikntik,^^  we  should  not  know  that  it  had  ever  existed.  Rosenfeldt 
himself  has  been  forgotten.  The  standard  Danish  encyclopedia  and  bio- 
graphical dictionaries  are  silent  about  him;  only  in  the  all  but  obsolete 
Literaturlexikon  by  Nyerup  and  Kraft  (1820)  do  we  find  a  short  account 
of  his  life  and  works.  Y/hat  the  Macbeth  of  1787  was  like  we  shall  prob- 
ably never  positively  know,  but  the  fact  that  it  was  in  prose,  .and  the  fact 
that  isolated  lines  quoted  in  Tode's  review  correspond  closely  with  corre- 
sponding lines  in  the  later  edition,  lead  one  to  believe  that  Rosenfeldt 
in  1790  simply  reprinted  the  text  of  the  first  edition.  In  his  review,  Tode 
says:  "We  have  long  wished  that  we,  too,  might  have  a  translation  of  one 
of  the  great  dramatic  poets  of  the  world,  but  a  translation  that  might  open 
the  eyes  of  those  who  will  not  accept  him  for  what  he  is  because  they 
can  not  read  him  in  the  original.  Such  a  translation  was  never  more  desir- 
able than  at  this  moment  when  English  literature  is  becoming  increas- 
ingly popular  among  us,  and  we  are  beginning  to  appreciate  this  great 
creative  genius  for  what  he  is."  The  writer  regrets  that  Rosenfeldt  cast 
the  translation  into  prose,  for  in  prose  the  pedestrian  passages  seem  to  have 
no  excuse  for  being,  and  the  strong  and  poetic  parts  lose  much  of  their 
dignit3^  "A  poet  should  be  translated  in  verse;  rather  adapt  than  imitate 
and  vitiate.  To  turn  what  is  essentially  poetry  into  prose  is,  accordingly, 
a  great  wrong."  The  remainder  of  the  review  is  occupied  with  a  close 
examination  of  the  translation  of  single  lines  in  the  first  two  scenes  of  Act  I. 
It  may  be  said,  without  entering  into  the  matter  further,  that  Tode's 
strictures  are  nearly  always  justified. 

We  know  so  little  of  Rosenfeldt's  life  that  we  can  only  speculate  about 
his  mode  of  work,  but  it  seems  altogether  likely  that  Macbeth  was  put  out 
as  a  feeler.  At  all  events,  two  years  after  Tode's  review  appeared  the  first 
part  of  William  Shakespeares  Skuespil.  Oversatte  paa  Dansk  efter  de  engel- 
ske  Originaler  aJN.  Rosenfeldt}^  This  volume  contains  three  plays,  Macbeth, 
Othello,  and  AlVs  Well  That  Ends  Well.  The  second  part,  containing  King 
Lear,  Cymbeline,  and  The  Merchant  of  Venice,  was  published  in  1792.  Tode 
had  advised  Rosenfeldt  to  study  Eschenburg,  and  he  had  done  so  to  such 
good  purpose  that  he  took  over  Eschenbiu-g's  notes,  with  some  conden- 
sation, to  be  sure,  and  he  quite  plainly  had  the  German  text  before  him 
as  he  worked.  Of  this  matter  I  shall  speak  in  a  moment.  On  page  ii  is 
a  pompous  dedication  to  "Herr  Christian  Colbiornson,  Hans  Kongelige 
Majestets  Etatsraad,  General-Procureur — Deputeret  i  det  Kongelige  Danske 
Cancellie — ^Assessor  i  Hoisteret,  etc.,  etc.,"  and  following  this,  on  pages  iii 
and  iv,  a  dedicatory  note  to  Colbjornson.  After  a  deferential,  almost 
servile  apology  for  the  liberty  he  has  taken  in  claiming  the  interest  of  the 

10  October,  1787-May,  1788,  no.  1. 
"  Kiobenhavn,  1790. 


6  MARTIX  B.  RUUD 

distinguished  statesman  in  his  work,  Rosenfeldt  continues:  "Indeed, 
it  is  solely  the  genius  and  extraordinary  natural  powers  of  the  original 
author — of  the  application  of  which  to  the  increase  of  knowledge  and  the 
improvement  of  manners  his  works  exhibit  so  many  examples — ^which  war- 
rant me  in  inscribing  [this  translation]  to  you,  whose  noble  and  successful 
labors  have  been  constantly  directed  toward  the  awakening  of  sympathy 
for  virtue  and  righteousness,  the  defense  of  human  rights,  and  the  cause 
of  truth."  Is  not  this  the  unmistakable  voice  of  the  eighteenth  century? 
Shakespeare,  if  he  is  to  be  at  all  significant  to  the  men  of  that  generation, 
must  be  enlisted  in  the  cause  of  virtue,  enlightenment,  and  social  and  polit- 
ical reform. 

From  the  patron,  Rosenfeldt  tiirns,  in  a  short  preface,  to  the  reader. 
He  apologizes  for  errors,  trusts  that  they  are  not  so  serious  that  they  will 
militate  against  the  usefulness  of  the  translation,  and  defends  the  use  of 
prose  on  the  ground  that,  save  in  the  so-called  "syngestykker,"  that  curious 
hybrid  of  opera  and  spoken  drama,  the  Danish  public  is  not  accustomed 
to  the  mingling  of  prose  and  verse  on  the  stage.  "In  The  Tempest  and 
A  Midsummer  Niglifs  Dream  I  have  attempted  a  verse  translation  of  the 
passages  written  in  verse,  for  they  would  otherwise  have  lost  too  much 
of  their  essential  beauty  without  any  corresponding  gain  in  accurac3^" 
Following  this  comes  a  translation  of  Pope's  introduction  to  his  edition 
(xi-xxxii)  and,  last  of  all,  pages  xxxiii-1,  a  conventional  but  well  in- 
formed sketch  of  Shakespeare's  life.  I  have  compared  this  biographical 
essay  with  that  in  Eschenbiu-g's  edition  of  1783,  and  it  seems  clear  that 
Rosenfeldt's  is  an  independent  compilation.  The  notes,  which  in  both 
parts  (1790  and  1792)  are  massed  at  the  back  of  the  volumes,  are,  however, 
frankly  translated  from  Eschenbiu-g.^^ 

It  is  not  easy  to  find  purple  passages  in  Rosenfeldt.  The  even  medioc- 
rity of  the  translation  makes  selection  difficult ;  but  perhaps  a  scene  from 
the  first  act  of  Macbeth  will  serve  oiu:  pru-pose : 

Dersom  det  var  afgjort  naar  det  er  gjort,  da  vilde  jeg  onske  det  nu  snart  var 
gjort;  kunde  Drabet  alene  hegne  for  Folgerne  og  indhente  de  seendrsegtige  Fordele, 
maatte  dette  Dolkestik  her  vEere  alt  og  ende  alt,  kun  her,  saa  vilde  jeg  paa  dette 
Tidens  Skjaer  modig  springe  det  tilkommende  Liv  forbi.  Men  i  slige  Tilfaelde  have  vi 
allerede  her  vor  Dom;  saasnart  vi  ikkun  give  andre  blodige  Anslag,  vende  de  ufortovet 
tilbage  for  at  plage  Opfinderen.  Retfasrdigheden  med  upartisk  Haand  forer  Giftbaege- 
ret  tilbage  til  vor  egne  Laeber.  Her  burde  han  have  dobbelt  Beskyttelse;  forst  fordi 
jeg  er  hans  beslsegtede  og  Undersaat,  tvende  stserke  Grunde  imod  denne  Handling. 
Saa  og  som  hans  Vert  burde  jeg  holde  Morderne  ude,  og  ikke  selv  gribe  Dolken. 
Duncan  bar  desuden  udvist  saa  megen  Mildhed,  forholdt  sig  saa  Himmelreen  paa 
sin  vigtige  Post,  at  hans  Dyder,  liig  Engle,  vil  udbasunere  dyb  Fordommelse  over 
hans  Ombringelse.  Ja,  Medynk  selv,  i  Skikkelse  af  et  nogent  nyfodt  Barn  vil  bestige 
Stormen,  eller  og  Himlens  Cheruber  ride  paa  Luftens  usynlige  Lobere  for  at  blasse 

'2  William  Shakespeare:  Schauspiele.     Neue  Ausgabe  von  Joh.  Joach.  Eschenburg.     Bd.  1-12.     Zurich, 
1775-77.     There  was  a  new  edition,  Strassburg,   1778;  reprinted,   Mannheim,   1783. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  7 

denne  afskyelige  Gjerning  i  enhvers  Oren,  indtil  Vinden  selv  skal  drukne  i  Taarer. 
Jeg  har  ingen  Braad  hvormed  jeg  kan  anspore  mit  Anslag,  uden  den  toylelose  ^r- 
gjerrighed,  der  forspringer  sig  selv,  og  falder'ind  paa  en  Anden — Nu,  hvad  Nyt! 

[Lady  Macbeth  kommer  ind] 

Lady  Macbeth:  Han  har  naesten  afspist;  hvorfor  forlod  du  Vaerelset? 

Macbeth:  Spurgte  han  efter  mig? 

Lady  Macbeth:  Ja,  er  det  ikke  bleven  dig  sagt? 

Macbeth:  Vi  vil  ey  gaa  vider  i  denne  Sag;  nu  nylig  har  jeg  modtaget  ^res- 
bevisninger  og  indkjobt  kostbare  Agtelses  Tegn  af  alle  Slags  Folk,  som  nu  maa  baeres 
i  deres  kostbareste  Glands,  og  ikke  kastes  bort  saa  hastig. 

Lady  Macbeth:  Var  da  Haabet  drukken,  som  dengang  beskjeled  dig?  Er  det 
siden  faldet  i  Sovn  og  vaagner  nu,  forat  blegne  og  forfaerdes  over,  hvad  det  gjorde  saa 
frimodigen?  Fra  dette  Ojeblik  af,  haver  jeg  samme  Tanker  cm  din  Kjerlighed. 
Frygter  du  for  i  Gjerningen  at  vise  den  samme  Behjertighed  som  i  dine  Onsker? 
Vil  du  erholde  det,  som  du  agter  for  Livets  storste  Klenodie,  og  dog  i  dine  egne  Tanker 
leva  som  en  Kujon,  ladende — 'jeg  tor  ikke'  vente  paa  'jeg  vilde,'  Hgesom  Katten  i 
Ordsproget? 

Macbeth:  Kjere,  tal  ey  mere  derom.  Jeg  tor  gjore  aU,  hvad  der  tilkommer  en 
Mand;  den  er  ingen,  der  vover  at  gjore  mere — ^^ 

And  so  on.  It  would  be  wearisome  to  quote  further.  Rosenfeldt's 
translations  were  promptly  reviewed  in  Lcerde  Eftenetninger }'^  The 
reviewer  is  conscientious,  but  insufferably  pedantic  and  trivial.  His 
admiration  for  Shakespeare  is  unstinted:  "One  can  give  dramatic  poets 
no  better  counsel  than,  in  the  words  of  Horace,  to  give  their  days  and  nights 
to  Shakespeare."  For  he  is,  and  will  continue  to  be,  the  great  master 
in  showing  forth  the  actions  of  men  and  the  hidden  springs  of  conduct. 
The  value  of  a  translation,  even  to  one  who  plans  to  read  Shakespeare 
in  the  original,  is  indisputable,  for  if  one  knows  the  drift  of  the  action  and 
has  an  intelligent  understanding  of  the  characters,  a  great  many  of  the 
difficulties  in  the  English  text  disappear.  But  to  produce  a  really  useful 
translation,  the  translator  niust  have  a  sound  knowledge  of  the  languages 
in  which  he  is  working.  And  this  knowledge,  he  maintains,  Rosenfeldt  does 
not  possess.  To  prove  his  contention  he  cites  a  ntnnber  of  inacctiracies 
in  translation  and  still  others  in  Danish  idiom  and  diction.  The  inaccu- 
racies are  indubitable,  and  the  abundance  of  German  words,  but  both  are 
venial  faults.  The  critic,  however,  was  keen  enough  to  hit  upon  the  fatal 
weakness  of  Rosenfeldt's  translation.  After  pointing  out  the  inadequacy 
of  a  prose  rendering,  and  the  flimsiness  of  the  translator's  explanation 
of  his  course,  he  writes:  "In  translating  into  prose,  Hr.  Rosenfeldt  assumes 
the  right  to  resolve  the  metaphors,  and  this  it  is  which  makes  of  the  vig- 
orous dialogue  of  the  original  fiat,  trivial,  and  garrulous  Danish." 

That  is  exactly  the  point.  To  an  even  greater  extent  than  in  Boye, 
prosy  paraphrase  is  made  to  do  duty  for  translation.  The  following  pas- 
sage offers  a  good  example : 

"  I,  6. 

n  Nyesle  Kibbenhavnske  Eflerrelninger  om  Lcerde  Soger  no.  27.     1790. 


MARTIN  B.  RUUD 


Helena:  .    .    .    Then  I  confess, 

Here  on  my  knee,  before  high  Heaven  and  you. 

That  before  you,  and  next  unto  high  Heaven, 

I  love  your  son. — 

My  friends  were  poor,  but  honest;  so's  my  love: 

Be  not  offended;  for  it  hurts  not  him 

That  he  is  loved  of  me.    I  follow  him  not 

By  any  token  of  presumptuous  suit; 

Nor  would  I  have  him,  till  I  do  deserve  him; 

Yet  never  know  how  that  desert  should  be.^^ 

Rosenfeldt  translates  thus: 

Nu  saa  bekjender  jeg  her  paa  mine  Knaee  for  Himmelen  og  for  Dem,  at  jeg  frem- 
for  Dem  og  naest  efter  den  hoie  Himmel  elsker  Deres  Son.  Mine  Venner  vare  fattige 
men  aerlige;  saaledes  er  ogsaa  min  Kjerlighed.  Fortornes  ei,  thi  det  skader  ham 
ikke,  at  han  er  elsket  af  mig.  Jeg  forfolger  ham  ei  med  mindste  Tegn  af  forvoven 
Efterstrasbelse;  ei  heller  vil  jeg  have  ham  forend  jeg  kan  fortjene  ham;  og  dog  ved 
jeg  ikke  hvorledes  jeg  kan  forskaffe  mig  denne  Fortjeneste. 

Note  the  bald  prosiness  of  the  last  three  lines.  The  translation  of  the 
lines  that  follow  is  perhaps  even  more  typical  of  the  fashion  in  which  Rosen- 
feldt emasculated  Shakespeare's  figures.  Compare  the  following  passage 
with  the  original : 

Jeg  veed  jeg  elsker  ham  forgjeves,  og  kjemper  imod  Haabet.  Dog  alligevel 
lader  jeg  min  Kjerligheds  Strom  i  dette  bedragelige  og  usikkre  Sold,  og  mserker  slet 
intet  Savn,  omend^kjont  jeg  bestandig  taber. 

Here  the  translation  is  not  merely  pure  periphrasis,  it  is  positively 
misleading.     Again,  in  Act  II,  the  original  has: 

King:  Thou  knowest  she  has  raised  me  from  my  sickly  bed. 
Bertram:  But  follows  it,  my  lord,  to  bring  me  down 
Must  answer  for  your  raising?  .    .    . 

Rosenfeldt  renders  Bertram's  speech: 

Men  folger  det  deraf,  naadige  Konge,  at  Deres 
Opreisning  skal  drage  mit  Fald  efter  sig? 

Now  and  again  we  encounter  eccentricities  that  are  worse  than  mere 
watery  paraphrases.  Two  occur  very  close  to  each  other  in  Macbeth. 
Compare  Macbeth's  speech  (III,  4,  38) : 

Now,  good  digestion  wait  on  appetite. 
And  health  on  both — 

with  the  Danish 

Nu  lad  da  FornSyelse  vaere  Appetitens  Befordrer  og  Sundhed  begges. 

Or,  Still  better,  this  gem  of  misimderstanding : 

«  All's  Well  That  Ends  Well,  I,  3. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE 


Lady  Macbeth: 

.    .    .    O,  these  flaws  and  starts, 
(Impostors  to  true  fear)  would  well  become 
A  woman's  story  at  a  winter's  fire 
Authoris'd  by  her  grandam — 


In  Danish: 


.  .  .  O!  denne  Forbauselse,  disse  Syner,  som  ere  blotte  Indbildninger,  vilde  vaere 
vel  anbragte  i  en  gammel  Kjellings  Eventyr  en  Vinteraften  for  at  moere  Sin  Bed- 
stemoder. 

How  any  one  who  could  read  English  at  all  could  shoot  so  wide  of  the  mark 
is  past  understanding. 

A  final  question  presents  itself  in  connection  with  Rosenfeldt's  trans- 
lation. To  what  extent  did  he  depend  on  Eschenburg?  From  Eschen- 
burg  he  borrowed  his  notes,  and  it  might  be  supposed  that  he  used  him 
as  a  gtiide  in  translating.  Unquestionably  he  did  so  use  him.  Eschen- 
burg, for  instance,  has  grossly  mistranslated  Helena's  words  in  All's  Well 
That  Ends  Well  (I,  3,  162): 

...    or  were  you  both  our  mothers 

.    .    .    Oder  waren  Sie  beyde  meine  Mutter 

and  Rosenfeldt,  not  understanding  the  English,  has  adopted,  with  a  slight 
modification,  Eschenburg's  reading : 

eller  vare  de  mig  begge  i  Moders  Sted 

Again,  the  countess  says: 

God  shield,  you  mean  it  not !  daughter  and  mother 
So  strive  upon  your  pulse. 

Eschenburg  renders  this: 

Machen  die  Worte  Tochter  und  Mutter  solchen  gewaltsamen  Eindruck  auf  dein  Blut. 

And  Rosenfeldt: 

Kunde  de  Ord  Moder  og  Svigerdatter  have  saamegen  Indflydelse  paa  dit  Blod. 

And  notice  how  much  closer  to  the  German  than  to  the  English  is 
Rosenfeldt's  translation  in  the  passage  given  above  (page  8) : 

Ich  folge  ihm  nicht  mit  irgend  einem  Zeichen  einer  zudringlichen  Bewerbung,  auch 
wunsche  ich  ihn  nicht  eher  zu  haben,  bis  ich  ihn  verdiene,  wiewohl  ich  nicht  absehe, 
wie  ich  mir  dies  Verdienst  je  erweben  kann. 

I  hope  there  will  be  no  misunderstanding.  Rosenfeldt  translates 
straight  from  the  English  and  uses  the  German  simply  as  an  occasional 
guide.  Occasional — for  it  is  plain  that  in  many  cases  he  did  not  consult 
Eschenburg  at  all.  We  can  infer  this  from  the  fact  that  in  some  cases 
where  Eschenburg  translates  correctly,  Rosenfeldt  goes  astray.     We  have 


10  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

already  quoted  as  an  instance  of  his  inaccuracy  Macbeth's  speech:     "Let 
good  digestion,"  etc.    Eschenburg  translates  correctly: 
Jetzt  bcgleite  gute  Verdauung  den  Appetit  und  Gesundheit  beyde. 

He  also  translates  correctly  the  speech  of  Lady  Macbeth  which  Rosen- 
feldt  mistranslates  (see  page  9) : 
Weibermarchen — wofur  ihre  Grossmutter  Gewahr  leistet. 

And  other  examples  are  abundant.  On  the  whole,  the  Danish  translator 
would  have  fared  better  if  he  had  followed  the  German  text  even  more 
closely  than  he  did. 

An  interesting  speculation  remains.  Did  Rosenfeldt  translate  the 
fragments  of  Julius  Caesar  which  appeared  in  Trondhjem's  Allehaande 
in  1782?^^  Information  about  him  is  scant3^  My  only  authority  is  Nyerup 
and  Kraft's  Almindeligt  Litter aturlexikon  (1820),  which  says  that  he  was 
bom  in  Christiania,  educated  at  the  university  of  Copenhagen,  and  in 
1796  made  prociu-ator  at  the  superior  court  in  his  native  city.  He  died 
as  bailiff  of  Stromso  (now  a  part  of  Drammen)  in  1805.  Most  of  his  life, 
then,  was  spent  in  Norway  and  it  is  entirely  possible  that  he  may  have 
published  a  specimen  of  his  Shakespearean  translations  in  Trondhjem's 
Allehaande.  It  is  true  that  Julius  Caesar  is  not  one  of  the  plays  in  the 
volumes  of  1790  and  1792,  but  this  objection  is  not  fatal,  since  we  know 
from  his  preface  to  the  first  volume^^  that  he  was  busied  on  certain  other 
plays  of  Shakespeare's  which  are  not  found  in  his  published  works.  The 
Tempest  and  A  Midsummer  Nighfs  Dream.  This,  of  course,  is  mere  con- 
jectiire. 


In  1794  Hans  Wilhelm  Riber  translated  for  the  Royal  Theatre  Nahum 
Tate's  stage  version  of  King  Lear.  Inasmuch  as  this  belongs  to  the  history 
of  Shakespeare  on  the  Danish  stage,  it  had  best  be  discussed  in  another 
chapter.  Two  years  later,  in  1796,  the  celebrated  Malthe  Conrad  Bruun 
tried  his  hand^^  at  two  passages  already  translated — Hamlet's  soliloquy, 
by  Boye;  and  Macbeth's  "Is  this  a  dagger  that  I  see  before  me?"  by  Rosen- 
feldt. His  judgment  on  their  efforts  was  certainly  not  complimentary. 
It  may  be  seriously  questioned,  however,  whether  Bruim's  work  is  so  im- 
mensely superior  to  them  as  he  seems  to  think.  Since  these  translations 
have  never  been  reprinted,  I  give  one,  the  soliloquy  from  Hamlet,  in  full:i* 

"  See  my  Shakespeare  in  Norway.    Scandinavian  Studies  and  Notes  4:92  S.    1917. 

"  Forste  Deel,  pp.  vii-x. 

"  In  Stada.  Et  Magatin  for  Theater,  Philosophie,  Litteratur  og  Historie.    Udgivet  af  M.  C.  Bruun. 

"  Cf.  with  Boye's  translation  of  the  same  passage,  p.  2. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  11 

At  vsere  eller  ikke  vasre?    Det  er 

Sporgsmaalet !     Er  det  asdlere  at  taale 

en  uretfserdig  Skjasbnes  Rasen,  eller 

imod  den  hele  Smerte  Hsr  at  gribe 

til  Vaaben  og  ved  Modstand  ende  dem? 

At  doe ! — at  sove ! — mere  er  det  ikke. 

Eet  Blund  kun,  saa  at  sige,  frelser  os  fra 

den  Hjerteqval,  den  Kiasmpen  mod  Naturen, 

som  faldt  i  Stovets  Arv.     Det  er  en  Ende 

andasgtigt  Onske  vard ! — At  doe ! — At  sove ! — 

At  sove!     Men  kanske  at  dromme?     Ah,  j a  her 

er  Knuden;  hvilke  Dromme  os  vil  mode 

i  Dodens  Sovn,  naar  Dodeligheds  Kjortel 

vi  kasted'  af,  det,  det,  maa  standse  os. 

Ja,  det  er  den  Betaenkning  som  opholder 

endog  Elendighedens  Liv  saa  Isenge. 

Hvo  vilde  ellers  baere  Lykkens  Snert 

og  Haan,  Tyrannernes  Uretfasrd,  Ringeagt 

af  den  Hovmodige,  foragtet  Elskovs 

Sjelsmserter,  Lovens  Seendra^gtighed 

og  Ovrighedens  Uforskammethed, 

den  Spot  Fortjenesten  maa  taalig  lide 

af  de  Uvaerdige?     Hvo  bar  det,  naar  han 

blot  med  en  Dolk  sig  kunde  skaffe  Roe? 

Hvo  vilde  Isenger  sukke,  svede  under 

det  Livs  Moisommelige  Byrde? — Men 

den  Angest  for  noget  after  Doden  (dette 

TJkjendte  Land  fra  hvilket  ingen  Reiser 

tilbagekom)  forvirrer  vor  Beslutning 

og  gjor  at  hellere  vi  lide  den 

bekjendte  Qval,  end  til  en  ukjendt  fiyve, 

Saa  gjor  Samvittighed  os  alle  feige ! 

Saa  sygner  Kisekhedens  medfodte  Farve 

ved  Overveielsens  det  blege  Anstrog. 

Ja,  store  dia;rve  Foretagender 

bortdreies  derved  fra  det  raske  Lob 

og  doe  uvirksomt  hen. 

In  No.  36  of  his  magazine  Tilskueren  for  1804,  Rahbek  tells  us  that 
he  has  long  contemplated  a  translation  of  Shakespeare,  but  that  he  has 
given  it  up,  since  "a  young  man  of  unquestionable  ability"  has  submitted 
to  him  some  specimen  scenes  of  distinct  promise.  The  ''young  man  of 
unquestionable  ability"  was  Foersom,  who  had  just  sent  to  Rahbek  some 
sheets  of  his  translation  of  Julius  Caesar.  Rahbek,  who  was  nothing  if 
not  generous,  was  quick  to  see  the  excellence  of  Foersom's  work  and  the 
immense  inferiority  of  his  own. 

One  essay  had  already  appeared.  In  1800  Rahbek  published  in  Miner- 
va^^  a  translation  of  Mark  Antony's  oration  at  Caesar's  funeral  (III,  2, 

2"  4:295  ff.     1800. 


12  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

75-262).  Rahbek  has  acquitted  himself  well.  The  translation  is  almost 
minutely  accurate,  smooth  and  flowing,  but  without  a  spark  of  poetic  fire. 
The  fluent  Danish  verses  do  not  move  the  reader  with  anything  of  the  insin- 
uating cunning  of  the  original.  But  so  superior  is  it  to  the  commonplace 
prose  of  Boye  and  Rosenfeldt,  that  one  is  tempted  to  emphasize  it  more, 
perhaps,  than  it  deserves.  The  reader  can  easily  form  his  own  estimate 
from  the  following  passage: 

I  Venner,  Landsmaend,  Romere !  O  laaner 

Mig  Eders  Ore!  her  jeg  kommer  for 

At  jorde  Caesar,  ei  at  prise  ham, 

Det  Onde  Maend  her  gjore,  overlever  dem ! 

Det  Gode  jordes  tit  med  dares  Been. 

Saa  vaere  det  med  Caesar !     Mdle  Brutus 

Fortalte  Eder,  han  var  herskesyg. 

Ifald  saa  var,  det  var  en  grusom  Feil, 

Og  grusomt  har  og  Caesar  bodet  for  den. 

Her  jeg — med  Bruti  Minde  og  de  Andres — 

(Thi  Brutus  er  en  hagdervaerdig  Mand, 

Det  er  de  alle,  Haedersmasnd.) 

Fremstaaer  at  tale  ved  hans  Jordefaerd. 

Han  var  min  Ven,  var  tro  og  retviis  mod  mig; 

Men  Brutus  siger:     Han  var  herskesyg; 

Og  Brutus  er  en  haedervaerdig  Mand. 

Han  bragte  mange  Fanger  her  til  Rom, 

Hvis  Losepenge  fyldte  Statens  Giemmer, 

Mon  dette  syntes  herskesygt  af  Caesar? 

Naar  Armod  grsed,  grasd  Caesar;  Herskesyge 

Vel  skulde  vare  giort  af  haardere  Malm. 

Dog  Brutus  siger  han  var  herskesyg, 

Og  Brutus  er  en  haedervaerdig  Mand. 

I  alle  saae,.  at  ved  Luperkals  Fest 

Jeg  treegang  bod  ham  Kongekrone;  som 

Han  treegang  afslog.     Var  det  Herskesyge? 

Dog  Brutus  siger  han  var  herskesyg, 

Og  Brutus  er  en  haedervaerdig  Mand. 

Jeg  taler  ei  at  dadle  Bruti  Ord, 

Men  jeg  er  her  at  sige  hvad  jeg  veed; 

I  alle  elsked  ham  eengang,  ei  uden  Foie, 

Hvad  hindrer  Eder  da  at  sorge  for  ham ! 

Forstand !  du  flygtet  er  til  vilde  Dyr, 

Og  Maend  har  tabt  dig !  baerer  over  med  mig ! 

Mit  Haab  er  i  Kisten  der  hos  Caesar 

Jeg  dvaele  maae,  til  jeg  det  har  tilbage. 

Four  years  afterwards,  in  taking  leave  of  Shakespearean  translation, 
Rahbek  published  in  Tilskueren  his  rendering  of  the  entire  first  act  of  Julius 
Caesar.^^  I  shall  not  tire  the  reader's  patience  and  mine  by  further  long 
quotations;  except  that  I  think  it  worth  while  to  give  a  part  of  the  speech 

«  Tilskueren.    Et  Ugeskrift  udgivet  ved  Knud  Lyne  Rahbek  1:  nos.  36.  37,  and  42.     1804. 


TRA  NSLA  TIONS  OF  SHA KESPEA  RE  13 

of  the  cobbler  in  scene  1  as  an  example  of  the  inevitable  failtire  of  one  lan- 
guage to  reproduce  the  subtleties  of  another : 

Second  Citizen:  Rigtig,  Herre!  Alt  hvad  jeg  lever  af  er  min  Syl;  jeg  befatter 
mig  ikke  med  nogen  Haandtering,  Mandsager  eller  Qvindesager,  uden  med  Sylen. 
Jeg  er,  sandt  at  sige,  Herre,  en  Feldskiser  for  gamle  Skoe;  naar  de  ere  i  stor  Fare, 
curerer  jeg  dem.  Saa  smukke  Folk  som  nogensinde  have  traad  paa  Oxehud  har  gaaet 
paa  mine  Hasnders  Gierninger. 

Rahbek  had  a  hand  in  one  other  Shakespearean  translation — a  ren- 
dering, in  collaboration  with  Christian  Levin  Sander,  of  Macbeth.  Sander, 
although  by  birth  and  education  a  German,  had  gained  a  position  in  Dan- 
ish letters  by  his  patriotic  tragedy,  Niels  Ebbesen  af  Norreriis  (1789). 
He  was  appointed,  in  1800,  professor  of  pedagogy  and  German  at  the  newly 
established  Pedagogical  Seminary.  Here,  in  the  winter  of  1801-2,  he 
delivered  a  series  of  lectures  on  "Shakespeare  and  His  Tragedy  Macbeth."^^ 
We  shall  consider  the  critical  lectures  when  we  come  to  discuss  Shakes- 
pearean criticism  in  Denmark.  For  the  moment  we  are  concerned  only 
with  Lectiu-es  XII,  XIII,  and  XIV,  which  consist  simply  of  a  complete 
prose  translation  of  the  play  by  Rahbek  and  Sander.  By  Rahbek  and 
Sander?  A  more  accurate  description  would  be  "by  Niels  Rosenfeldt. 
Revised  by  Rahbek  and  Sander."  Fully  to  realize  this,  one  has  only  to 
compare  the  dialogue  from  Macbeth,  already  given,  with  the  correspond- 
ing passage  in  Rahbek  and  Sander. 

Lady  Macbeth:  Var  da  dette  Haab  drukken  som  for  besielede  dig  med  Mod? 
Er  det  siden  faldet  i  Sovn,  og  vaagner  nu,  for  at  blegne  og  forfaerdes  over,  hvad  det 
nys  besluttede  med  saa  megen  Manddom?  Fra  dette  Oieblik  af  troer  jeg  det  samme 
cm  din  Kjerlighed.  Hvad?  Frygter  du  for  i  Gjerningen  at  vise  det  samme  Mod, 
som  i  dine  Onsker?  Vil  du  erholde  det  som  du  agter  for  Livets  storste  Klenodie,  og 
dog  i  dine  egne  Tanker  leve  som  en  Nidding?  Skal  dette — jeg  tor  ikke — strax  folge 
paa — jeg  gad  gjerne!    Er  du  som  Katten  i  Ordsproget? 

Macbeth:  Jeg  beder  dig,  hold  op!  Jeg  tor  alt,  hvad  der  sommer  sig  for  en 
Mand;  den  der  tor  mere  er  ingen. 

That  the  translators  of  1801  had  the  earlier  version  before  them  is 
obvious.  It  would  be  quite  unjust,  however,  to  charge  them  with  whole- 
sale plagiarism.  They  altered,  and  they  altered  nearly  always  for  the  better. 
Note  how  much  simpler  and  clearer  is  Rahbek  and  Sander's  rendering  of 
the  last  three  lines  of  Lady  Macbeth's  first  speech !  And  certainly : 
Jeg  tor  alt  hvad  der  sommer  sig  for  en  Mand;  den  der  tor  mere  er  ingen 
is  at  once  more  direct  and  more  nearly  correct  than 

Jeg  tor  gjore  alt,  hvad  som  tilkommer  en  Mand;  den  er  ingen  der  vover  at  gjore  mere. 
A  bit  further  along,   Rosenfeldt's  meaningless  and  ridiculous  phrasing: 

'2  Levin  Christian  Sander,  Forelcesninger  over  Shakespeare  og  hans  Sorgespil  Marhcth.  ITeri  findes 
tillige  det  ved  Sander  og  Rahbek  oversatte  Sorgespil  Macbeth  som  ogsaa  kan  faaes  sjerskildt.  Kiciben- 
havn.     1804. 


14  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

Hvad  var  del  da  for  ei  Dyr,  der  kom  dig  til  at  fortroe  mig  et  saadant  Foretagende? 

is  much  improved  by  the  revisers: 

Var  det  da  el  Uhyre,  der  bevsegede  dig  til  at  fortroe  mig  dette  Foretagende? 

But  their  indebtedness  to  Rosenfeldt  is  indubitable,  though  the^'-  fail  to 
mention  his  name.  Rahbek,  at  least,  knew  Rosenfeldt's  translations,  for 
he  mentions  them  in  1816  in  his  valuable  survey  of  Danish  Shakespeariana. 


All  these  attempts  are,  however,  essentially  preliminaries.  In  com- 
parison ■\^ath  the  work  of  Peter  Thun  Foersom  they  are  quite  negligible. 
It  was  he  who  first  gave  to  Denmark  adequate  translations  of  Shakespeare, 
so  that  the  supreme  dramatist  of  the  world  became  a  reality  to  the  Dan- 
ish people. 

Foersom  was  born  February  20,  1777,  in  Oster  Lindet,  near  Ribe, 
in  Jutland,  where  his  father  was  rector. ^-^  In  1793  he  matriculated  at 
the  university  from  the  Latin  school  at  Ribe,  and  passed  the  prelim- 
inary examinations  with  fair  success.  After  1795,  however,  he  seems  to 
have  devoted  most  of  his  time  to  languages,  belles  lettres,  amateur  theatri- 
cals, and  the  innocent,  if  often  boisterous  fun  of  the  Quartier  Latin  of 
Copenhagen.  Before  long  his  interest  in  the  stage  took  him  to  the  Royal 
Theatre,  where,  on  October  18, 1798,  he  made  his  debut.  Foersom  was  not 
a  bom  actor.  His  figure  was  unimpressive;  his  voice,  low  and  indistinct; 
his  stage  presence,  almost  awkward.  But  he  had  an  iron  will  which  kept 
him  at  work,  and  he  had  an  imagination  which  penetrated  with  perfect 
sureness  to  the  heart  of  the  role  he  was  playing.  Added  to  this  was  an  un- 
usual mimetic  power  and  an  intensity  of  emotion  which  gave  to  his  inter- 
pretations of  complex  characters  an  unforgetable  beauty.  His  Hamlet 
is  one  of  the  great  traditions  of  the  Danish  stage.  These  qualities  of  imagi- 
native power,  artistic  sympathy,  and  complete  absorption  in  the  task 
before  him,  which  enabled  him  to  overcome  all  physical  handicaps  as  an 
actor,  were,  of  coiirse,  the  very  qualities  which  made  him  an  ideal  translator. 

He  had  begun  the  study  of  English  in  school  days  at  Ribe.  When 
he  came  home  on  his  vacations  his  father  often  gave  him  a  page  or  two  of 
an  English  dictionary  to  memorize.  So  far  from  discouraging  the  school- 
boy this  drastic  discipline  had  but  the  effect  of  stimulating  his  eager  desire 
to  learn  English  as  perfectl}^  as  possible.  He  devoiu-ed  dictionaries  and 
grammars,  and  English  books  of  all  sorts.  Perhaps  aU  this  wotild  have 
had  no  permanent  effect  had  he  not,  in  1795,  come  upon  Ossian  in  the 
original.  It  is  difficult  for  us  today  to  realize  the  magic  effect  of  this  curious 
compound  of  bombast  and  sentimentality  on  the  men  of  the  time.    Foersom, 

"  The  chief  source  of  the  following  account  of  Foersom's  life  is  the  excellent  monograph  by  Nicolaj 
Bogh  in  Museum  2:223  £E.  and  296  flf.     1895. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  15 

like  cotmtless  others  in  every  land,  was  carried  completely  away.  He  re- 
solved to  know  at  first  hand  the  masterpieces  of  this  wonderful  literature, 
and  he  was  led,  as  Ewald  had  been,  to  Shakespeare.  Exactly  when  he 
took  up  the  study  of  Shakespeare  we  do  not  know,  nor  when  he  began 
the  work  of  translation.  But  in  1803  he  submitted  Julius  Caesar  to  the 
Royal  Theatre.  The  directors  quietly  pigeon-holed  it.  That  might  have 
ended  the  matter,  had  not  Foersom  also  sent  his  translation  to  Rahbek, 
who  was  quick  to  recognize  its  excellence,  and  in  1804  published  in  Mi- 
nerva the  whole  of  Act  V.^*  From  time  to  time  Foersom  pubHshed  further 
specimens  in  periodicals  and  annuals. 

In  his  Nytaarsgave  for  Skiiespilyndere  (1805)  appeared  a  short  passage 
from  Act  IV,  3  of  Lovers  Labour's  Lost;  in  the  same  annual  for  1807,  under 
the  title  Dramaturgie  in  mice,  Hamlet's  speech  to  the  players,  and  most 
of  Romeo  and  Juliet,  beginning  with  the  ball  at  the  Capulets';  finally,  in 
1811,  in  Theone,  the  Falstaff  scenes  from  i  Henry  IV. 

In  the  meantime,  however,  Foersom  had  succeeded  in  getting,  on 
what  he  calls  "ubillig  billige"  terms,  a  publisher  for  the  first  volume  of 
his  translations, 2^  containing  Hamlet  and  Julius  Caesar.  Both  of  these 
plays  were  ready  earlier,  the  latter  in  1803;  Hamlet  in  ISOS.^^  And  there- 
after the  volumes  appeared  fairly  regularly  till  shortly  before  Foersom's 
death;  Part  II,  Lear,  Romeo  og  Julie  (1811);  Part  III,  Richard  II,  i  Henry 
11/(1815);  Part  IV,  2  Henry  IV,  Henry  F  (1816);  Part  V,  1-2  Henry  VI 
(1818).  Of  Part  V  Foersom  translated  i  Henry  VI  and  2  Henry  VI, 
Act  I.  The  rest  is  by  P.  F.  Wulff,  who  carried  the  work  forward  till  1825. 
Further,  in  1811,  Foersom  published  a  revised  edition  of  Hamlet,  and  in 
1816  a  translation  and  adaptation  of  Schiller's  stage  version  of  Macbeth. 
The  reason  for  preparing  a  revised  edition  of  Hamlet  so  soon  after  the  first 
reveals  in  a  very  interesting  way  the  spirit  in  which  Foersom  approached 
his  great  task.  The  translations  of  Part  I  had  been  based  on  Steevens' 
edition.  But  Foersom  knew  that  the  best  text  was  Malone's,  and  as  soon, 
therefore,  as  he  could  procure  a  copy,  he  undertook  a  revision  of  the  plays 
already  published.  Apparently  only  Hamlet  was  ever  finished,  for  there 
is  no  record  of  a  second  edition  of  Julius  Caesar  from  Foersom's  hand. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  changes  in  the  second  edition  of  Hamlet  are  the 
slightest  possible,  and  absolutely  without  significance. 

Foersom,  indeed,  did  not  pretend  to  philological  accuracy.  What 
he  did  pretend  to  do  he  has  himself  clearly  stated  in  the  preface  to  Part  I. 

**  Scener  af  Shakespeare's  Sdrgespil  Julius  Caesar.  May,  1804.  The  text  has  been  collated  for  me 
with  that  of  1811  by  Caad.  phil.  Poul  Poulsen.  Hr.  Poulsen  writes:  "The  text  in  Collected  Works  is  essen- 
tially the  same  as  that  of  the  specimen.  The  orthography,  however,  is  not  identical;  something  hardly 
to  be  expected  at  that  time." 

w  William  Shakespeare:  Tragiske  Vcerker.  Oversatte  af  Peter  Foersom.  1-4.  KiObenhavn.  1807-16. 
Femte  Deel,  Oversat  af  Peter  Foersom  og  P.  F.  Wulff.    KiObenhavn.     1818. 

"  Cf.  Foersom's  letter  to  Rahbek,  September  29,  1805.    Bogh,  op.  cil.  p.  302. 


16  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

"The  cardinal  principle  which  I  adopted  for  this  translation  was  to  repro- 
duce the  words  of  the  poet  in  a  manner  worthy  of  him,  to  repeat  as  faith- 
full}'  as  Echo  what  his  Genius  imparted  unto  me.  Wherever  I  have  failed 
to  achieve  this  goal,  though  I  have  kept  it  faithfully  before  me,  as  on  a 
high  mountain,  and  have  remained  wandering  about  on  the  plains,  the 
failure  is  due  to  simple  want  of  capacit3^"  The  reader  must  not  look,  he 
continues,  for  strict  metrical  regularity — Shakespeare  himself  is  often 
irregtdar — nor  for  exact  renderings  of  puns  and  wordplay  and  disputed 
passages.  Occasionally,  indeed,  such  passages,  when  they  defied  explana- 
tion, have  been  silently  omitted. 

We  cannot  be  sure,  then,  that  in  reading  Foersom  we  are  reading  Shake- 
speare's very  words.  Critics,  from  the  first  reviewer,  Werner  Abrahamson, 
to  Edvard  Brandes  in  our  own  day,  have  not  failed  to  point  out  the  mis- 
takes. I  open  my  book  absolutely  at  random  and  light  upon  such  an  unin- 
telligible jargon  as  the  following  in  the  translation  of  Hamlet's  cryptic 
speech  to  Polonius  (II,  2) : 

Lad  hende  ei  gaa  i  Solen;  Frugtbarhed  er  en  Velsignelse;  men  da  Jeres  Datter 
kan  bjere  Frugt — min  gode  Mand !  hav  et  Oie  paa  hver  Finger. 2" 

The  fact  remains,  of  course,  that  he  who  would  have  the  ipsissima 
verba  of  the  author  has  no  recourse  but  to  turn  to  the  original.  Of  a  trans- 
lation we  ask  only  an  approximation.  The  glory  of  Foersom's  translations 
is  not  philological,  but  poetic.  Edvard  Lembcke,  who  revised  and  com- 
pleted his  work  many  years  later,  said  truly  that  "there  are  passages  in 
which  Foersom's  poetic  genius  has  asserted  itself  in  such  a  way  that  it  has 
found  the  living  and  vivid  phrase"  which  cannot  become  archaic  and 
which  caimot  be  improved.^s 

No  better  example  of  the  sureness  with  which  Foersom  entered  into 
the  spirit  of  Shakespeare,  or  of  the  miraculous  felicity  with  which  he  repro- 
duced his  poetry  can  be  instanced  than  the  superb  translation  of  the  bal- 
cony scene  in  Romeo  and  Juliet: 

Han  leer  af  Skrammer  som  blev  aldrig  saaret ! — 

{Julie  lader  sig  see  oppe  i  sit  Vindue  ] 
Men  tys!     Hvad  gjennemstraaler  Vinduet  hist, 
Det  Osten  er,  og  Julie  er  Solen ! 
Staae  op,  o  favre  Sol!  og  drasb  Diana; 
at  Du  skjondt  hendes  Tempelvogterinde, 
er  skjonnere  end  hun,  det  harmer  hende. 
O,  tjen  ei  hende;  hun  er  fuld  af  Nid: 
see  hendes  Vestalindedragt  er  gusten 
og  bleg,  kun  skabt  for  Daarer;  derfor  kast  den. — 
Det  er  min  Elskte.     Det  er  min  Udvalgte! 

"  Let  her  not  walk  i'  the  sun:  conception  is  a  blessing;  but  not  as  your  daughter  may  conceive: — friend, 
look  to  't. 

"  Quoted  by  Bogh,  op.  cit.  p.  305. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  17 

O,  vidste  hun  hun  var  det ! 

Hun  taler,  dog  hun  siger  Intet; — Intet? 

Jo,  hendes  Oie  taler,  jeg  vil  svare — 

Jeg  er  for  dristig,  ei  til  mig  hun  taler; 

Det  Skjonneste  af  Himlens  Stjernepar 

er  bortsendt  og  har  bedet  hendes  Oine 

at  skinne,  til  de  kom,  i  deres  Baner. 

O,  vare  handes  Oine  der,  og  de 

i  hendes  Ansigt,  hendes  Kinders  Glands 

beskjsemmed'  Stjernerne,  som  Dagens  Lys 

en  Lampes  Skin;  fra  hendes  Oie  strommed 

et  Straalehav  igiennem  Luftens  Riga, 

saa  Fugle  sang,  og  meente  det  var  Morgen. 

See,  hvor  sin  Kind  hun  stotter  paa  sin  Haand ! 

O,  var  jeg  Handsken  blot  paa  hendes  Haand, 

saa  rorte  jeg  hiin  Kind! 

Julie:  Vee  mig! 

Romeo:  Hun  taler! — 

Tal  atter,  Lysets  Engel,  thi  Du  straaler 

i  Natten  saa  hoiherlig  over  mig, 

som  en  af  Herrens  vingede  Cheruber 

for  Dodeliges  himmelvendte  Oine, 

naar  underslagne  de  tilbage  segne, 

og  stirre  paa  dens  Gang  blandt  stille  Skyer 

mens  over  Luftens  morke  Barm  den  seller. 

Julie:  O,  Romeo!  hvi  est  du,  Romeo? 

afsiig  din  Fader  og  forsvaerg  Dit  Navn; 

vil  Du  ei  det,  da  svaerg  Du  er  min  Elsker 

og  jeg  ei  mer  en  Capulet  vil  vsere! 

In  rhythm,  melody,  beauty  of  imagery  and  phrase,  this  is  well-nigh 
perfect.  So  nearly  flawless,  indeed,  is  it,  that  when  Lembcke  attempted 
to  revise  it  in  1861,  he  all  but  ruined  it: 

Tal  atter,  Lysets  Engel,  thi  saa  herlig 
Du  straaler  her  i  Natten  over  mig 
som  en  af  Herrens  vingede  Cheruber 
for  Dodeliges  himmelvendte  Oine, 
der  stirre  med  tilbageboiet  Hoved 
imens  imag  han  rider  Skyens  Ganger 
og  seller  sagtelig  paa  Luftens  Barm. 

Since  Lembcke  obviously  spared  himself  no  pains,  it  is  passing  strange 
that  he  did  not  correct  the  errors  that  fairly  stared  him  in  the  face,  e.g., 
the  line  to  which  Foersom  gives  a  decidedly  ambiguous  turn: 

O,  var  jeg  Handsken  blot  paa  hendes  Haand, 
saa  rorte  jeg  hiin  Kind. 

Equally  fine  is  the  translation  of  the  passage  in  Richard  II,  V,  1,  be- 
ginning : 

Queen:  What,  is  my  Richard  both  in  shape  and  mind 
Transformed  and  weakened?  etc. 


18  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

The  queen's  WTath  and  contempt  for  the  king's  pusillanimity  are  no  less 
adequately  put  in  Foersom's  Danish: 

Dronningen:  Hvad!  Er  min  Richard  da  paa  Sjael  som  Legem, 

omskabt  og  svaekket? — Siig,  har  Bolingbroke 

afsat  din  Hjeme,  gravet  i  dit  Hjerte? 

I  Do  den  selv  slaar  Loven  Kjaempekloen 

og  saarer  Jorden,  om  ei  andet,  harmfuld, 

at  den  er  overvunden,  og  vil  Du, 

paa  Pogeviis  fromt  doie  Straf.     Riis  kysse, 

for  ham,  den  glubende  dybt  ydmygt  krybe, 

Du,  Love!     Konge  over  Dyrene. 

Kong  R.:  Ret!     Konge  over  Dyr!     Ja,  var'  de  bedre 

var  jeg  end  over  Folk  en  seirsael  Konge. 

Min  elskte  Fordums-Dronning!  drag  til  Frankrig, 

tasnk  jeg  er  dod,  og  at  nu  her  Du  tager 

som  paa  min  Dodseng !  evig  Afsked  fra  mig ! 

I  kjedsom  Vinteraften  sid  ved  Arnen 

hos  gode,  gamle  Folk;  lad  dem  fortaelle 

Dig  Sagn  om  bittre,  laengst  forsvundne  Tider; 

og  for  god  nat  Du  siger,  saa  til  Gjengaeld 

for  deres  Sorg  fortael  mit  Sorgefald; 

send  dem  saa  graedende  til  deres  Senge, 

thi  selv  de  dode  Brande  ville  stemme 

i  Din  sorgstemte  Tunges  Sorgetone, 

de  vU.de  grsede  Ilden  ud  af  Medynk, 

og  sorge  her  i  Aske,  hist  i  Kulsort, 

fordi  en  sal  vet  Kong  saa  blev  afsat. 

Nor  was  Foersom  less  happy  in  his  rendering  of  Shakespeare's  lighter 
passages,  as  witness  this  spirited  and  dashing  translation  of  the  immortal 
scene  between  Prince  Hal  and  Falstaff  in  the  Boar's  Head  Tavern : 

Falstaff:  Fanden  tage  alle  Kujoner  og  det  med  Hud  og  Haar;  nu  og  i  al  Evighed, 
Amen!  Det  er  mine  Ord. — Giv  mig  et  Glas  Sask,  Dreng! — For  jeg  laenger  skal  ved- 
blive  dette  Liv,  for  skal  jeg  knytte  Stromper  og  stoppe  og  saale  dem  ovenikjobet. — 
Fanden  tage  alle  de  Kujoner! — Giv  mig  et  Glas  Saek,  Esel.  Er  der  da  ingen  Dyd  mer 
paa  Jorden? 

Prinds  H.:  Saae  du  da  aldrig  Titan  kysse  et  Fad  Smor?  den  blodhjertede  Titan 
som  smeltede  ved  Sonnens  blode  Fortaelling!  Gjorde  du  det,  saa  betragt  engang 
denne  Masse ! 

Falstaff:  I  Esel!  Ogsaa  i  dette  Glas  Ssk  er  der  Kalk!  Der  er  ikke  andet 
end  Kjeltringer  at  finde  blandt  de  syndige  Mennesker — Dog — en  Kujon  er  to 
Gffinge  vaerre  end  Saek  med  Kalk  i !  en  skjasndelig  Kujon ! — Gaae  din  Vei,  gamle  Hans ! 
Doe  naar  Du  vil!  dersom  Mandsmod,  aegte  Mandsmod  ikke  er  udslettet  af 
Jordens  Ansigt,  vil  jeg  passere  for  en  suur  Sild.  Der  leve  ikke  tre  brave  Mand  uhsng- 
te  i  hele  England;  og  den  ene  af  dem  er  feed  og  bliver  til  Alders;  Gud  see  i  Naade 
til  os;  Det  er  en  slem  Verden,  siger  jeg.  Gid  jeg  var  Vaever!  saa  kunde  jeg  sidde  og 
synge  Psalmer  eller  saadant  noget! — Fanden  tage  alle  Kujoner,  siger  jeg  endnu 
engang. 

Prinds  H:  Hvad  nu,  I  Uldsask,  hvad  mumler  I  der? 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  19 

Falstaff:  Du,  en  Kongeson!  Hvis  jeg  ikke  med  en  Narrebrix  prygler  Dig  ud 
af  Dit  Kongerige,  og  driver  alle  dine  Undersaater  foran  Dig  som  en  Flok  Vildgjses, 
saa  gid  der  aldrig  mere  voxe  Skjseg  i  mit  Ansigt! — I  Prinds  af  Wales! 

Prinds  H:  Hvad!     I  forbandede  Kanonprop !    Hvad  gaaer  der  af  Jer ! 

Falstaff:  Er  I  ikke  en  Kujon?  svar  mig  paa  dette?  og  Poins  der? 

PoiNS:  For  Djaevelen  i  Istervom?  Kalder  I  mig  Kujon,  render  jeg  Dig  med 
Kaarde  gjennem  Livet. 

Falstaff:  Jeg  kalder  Dig  Kujon?  Jeg  vil  for  see  Dig  i  Helvede,  end  jeg  vilde 
kalde  Dig  Kujon;  men  jeg  vilde  give  tusinde  Pund  til,  at  jeg  kunde  rende  saa  staerkt, 
som  Du  kan.  I  har  en  smuk  Hge  Ryg;  I  bryder  Jer  ikke  om  at  Folk  seer  Eders  Bag. — 
Kalder  I  det  at  vasre  i  Baghold  for  Eders  Venner?  Fanden  i  Void  med  sligt  Baghold ! 
Lad  mig  faae  Nogen  for  mig  som  tor  see  mig  under  Oine.  Lad  mig  faae  et  Bseger 
Saek; — jeg  er  en  Skjelm,  har  jeg  smakt  Vaadt  endnu  i  Dag. 

Prinds  H:  O  Gavtyv!     Dine  Lasber  er  knap  torre  endnu  af  det  sidste  Du  drak. 

Falstaff:  Ligemeget  er  det!  Fanden  tage  all  Kujoner  siger  jeg  syvende  og 
sidste  Gang. 

[Han  drikker] 

Foersom's  success  was  decisive  from  the  first.  His  good  friend  Werner 
Abrahanison  reviewed  Part  I  in  two  long  articles  in  Lcsrde  Efterretninger P 
Good  translations  are  rare,  he  writes,  and  good  translations  of  Shake- 
speare even  rarer.  In  Danish,  with  the  exception  of  one  or  two  fragments, 
there  is  not  a  single  one,  for  certain  others — undoubtedly  Rosenfeldt's, 
though  he  does  not  say  so — are  worthless.  He  then  points  out  with  a  good 
deal  of  insight  certain  of  the  external  difficulties  in  the  way  of  a  satisfactory 
translation — the  abundance  of  monosyllables  and  of  archaisms.  Foersom 
has  done  his  work  admirably,  however,  and  it  is  not  creditable  to  the  Dan- 
ish public  that  he  should  have  had  such  difficulties  in  obtaining  a  publisher. 
"Can  it  be  that  our  host  of  readers  read  but  to  kill  time,  never  suspecting 
that  they  have  a  head  and  heart,  both  in  need  of  sound  sustenance." 
The  remainder  of  the  very  long  review  is  concerned  with  the  translation 
of  single  words  and  lines.  Here  he  does  not  usually  fare  so  well,  and  Foer- 
som, in  a  later  number  of  Lcsrde  Efterretninger,^^  has  no  difficulty  in  dis- 
arming his  critic.  Thus,  when  Abrahamson  suggests  that,  instead  of 
Foersom's 

.    .    .    hvi  dine  hellige  bisatte  Been, 
the  line  should  read 

Hvorfor  dit  Legeme,  lagt  i  hellig  Jord, 
Foersom  answers  that  the  reading  which  Abrahamson  has  in  mind, 

Why  thy  bones,  hears'd  in  canonized  Ep,rth — 
is  a  commentator's  guess,  probably  Pope's.     And  so  in  many  other  in- 
stances. 

»  Pp.  289  ff.  and  364  ff.  1807. 
20  Pp.  364  ff.  1807. 


20  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

A  reviewer  in  Nyeste  Skilderier  aj  Kjohenhavn?^  was  as  emphatic  in 
his  praise  as  Abraliamson.  After  a  thoughtful  and  intelligent  comment 
on  Leer,  he  continues,  "To  translate  all  this  so  as  to  give  to  the  Danish 
reader  a  play  of  Shakespeare's  as  little  removed  from  the  original  as  a  trans- 
lation can  be,  is  a  work  of  genius."  He  enumerates,  as  Abrahamson  had 
dor.e,  the  difficulties  of  translating  Shakespeare:  the  superabundance  of 
monosyllables  in  English,  the  numerous  obsolete  and  obsolescent  words, 
the  indi^^duality,  the  eccentricity,  indeed,  of  Shakespeare's  diction;  and, 
finall}',  the  extreme  condensation  of  phrase,  w'hich  tempts  to  paraphrase  or 
silent  omission  of  the  knotty  verses.  "To  steer  clear  of  Scylla,  and  yet  not 
fall  into  Charybdis,  is  the  problem  that  Foersom  has  so  beautifully  solved," 

After  Foersom's  death,  in  1817,  the  recognition  of  the  greatness  of 
liis  achievements  grew  ever  deeper  and  finer.  Rahbek,  who  had  been 
the  first  to  welcome  it,  wrote  with  perfect  truth:  "He  was  a  poet  in  the 
finest  and  truest  sense  of  the  word.  ...  I  speak  not  merely  of  his  translation 
of  Shakespeare,  although  it  is  doubtless  upon  this  that  his  reputation 
must  rest;  ...  it  is  one  of  the  exceeding  few  translations  in  which  spirit 
interprets  spirit,  and  not  letter,  letter;  and  reveals  in  so  many  respects 

That  his  soul  with  Shakespeare  lives. '^ 

Molbech  wrote  about  the  same  time:  "The  difference  between  Foer- 
som's translation  and  those  that  preceded  it  is  that  his  foUow^s  Shake- 
speare's form,  whereas  they  are  in  prose.  Even  one  who  can  not  read  the 
original  will  understand  how  difficult  his  task  was.  It  is  true  that  it  some- 
times led  him  away  from  the  literal  translation;  but  the  instances  are  not 
mam-,  and  even  when  he  is  farthest  away,  he  still  preserves  the  spirit  of 
Shakespeare.  Certain  it  is  that  he  is  not  alw^ays  equal  to  Schlegel;  but  it 
is  equally  certain  that  he  is  often  superior  to  him."^^  Two  years  later, 
Meisling,  who  himself  translated  The  Tempest  and  The  Merchant  of  Venice, 
and  was,  therefore,  in  some  sense,  a  rival,  paid  Foersom  generous  tribute. 
"Without  troubling  ourselves  with  a  microscopic  analysis  of  petty  errors 
...  of  which  there  are  but  few,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  this  trans- 
lation must  be  considered  one  of  the  best.  .  .  which  Danish  literature 
possesses.  Ntunerous  and  maddening  as  are  the  bltmders  of  oiu:  recent 
translations,  they  but  reveal  in  sharper  light  his  work,  wrought  with  a 
clear  conception  of  what  he  was  doing,  love  for  his  poet,  and  competence 
of  soul.  Surely,  if  these  qualities  can  make  it  one,  this  must  be  called  a 
work  of  art."34  There  were  other  tributes,  in  prose  and  in  verse,  so  kindly 
meant  that  it  seems  the  part  of  charity  not  to  reprint  them  here.^^ 

2=  15:55  fl.  and  69  ff.     1811. 

»2  Tilskueren  no.  25.     1817. 

"Athene  9 AOiS.     1817. 

"  Dansk  Lileralurtidende  no.  17.     1819.     Quoted  by  Bogh,  op.  cit.  p.  304. 

»See  Tilskueren  no.  15.     1817.    Ibid.  nos.  25  and  26.     Cf.  also  Bogh.  of.  cit.  p.  305,  note  2. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  21 

As  was  to  be  expected,  there  were  voices  of  dissent;  and  one  was  so 
insistent  that  it  can  not  be  passed  over.^^    Thomas  Thaarup  is  known  in 
Danish  Hterature  for  his  little  idyllic  interlude  Hostgildet.     In  private 
life,  however  he  is  said  to  have  been  hot-tempered  and  sharp-tongued. 
At  all  events,  he  was  in  politics  and  in  literatiire  incredibly  parochial  and 
bigoted.     In  1813  he  gave  the  impulse  to  the  so-called  "Jodefeiden" — an 
outbreak  of  Anti-Semitism — by   a  translation  of  Bucholtz'   Moses  and 
Jesus,  and  in  1816  he  added  fuel  to  the  fire  by  his  translation  of  Riih's 
On  the  Claim  oj  the  Jews  to  German  Citizenship.     In  an  appendix  to  the 
work,  Thaarup  refers  to  a  Gennan  play,  Unser  Verkehr,  a  satire  on  the  Jews. 
This  play  he  had  translated  into  Danish,  but  had  not  sent  it  to  theatre, 
"although  I  cannot  understand  why  it  should  not  be  performed  there, 
as  it  has  been  elsewhere."     A  few  lines  further  on  he  continues:     "Of  a 
truth,  the  stage  is  in  as  great  need  of  such  plays  as  the  public  of  amuse- 
ment ;  there  is  nothing  which  we  lack  so  little  as  material  for  dolorous  medi- 
tation; and  we  do  not  have  to  create  it  by  massacres  on  the  stage.     Our 
[romantic]   poetry   will,   outside   the  playhouses,  foster  the  superstition 
so  dear  to  many,  without  its  being  necessary  to  frighten  weak  women 
and  helpless  children  by  hollow  strokes  of  a  midnight  bell — or  by  the  ghost 
of  a  murdered  king  with  crown  and  sceptre,  in  papier-mache  armor  from 
head  to  foot.    Badly  chosen  and  morally  offensive  expressions  are  so  com- 
mon in  daily  speech  and  in  print,  that  it  is  quite  superfluous  to  present 
a  crazy  king  who  curses  his  daughter  in  words  which  might  be  pardoned 
in  a  lecture  to  midwives,  but  are  utterly  inappropriate  in  a  tragedy." 
The  address  is  plain  as  could  be  desired,  and  Foersom  did  not  allow 
the  attack  to  go  unchallenged.     He  published  anonymously  in  Molbech's 
Athene^'  a  long  letter  from  "William  Shakespeare  in  Elysium  to  Thomas 
Thaarup  in  Smidstrup."^^     First  of  all,  he  tells  the  disgruntled  Thaarup 
that  he  is  very  weU  satisfied  in  Elysium,  more  content  than  on  earth, 
!  although,  thank  God,  he  was  very  well  satisfied  there,  and  never  affected 
;  the  distressing  grouch  which  leads  only  to  the  misery  of  oneself  and  one's 
!  friends.     He  says  that  for  a  long  time  after  his  death  he  was  considered 
!  a  madman,  with  certain  gleams  of  sanity  and  imagination,  to  be  sure,  but 
,  without  learning  or  taste.     Then  it  was  that  David  Garrick  made  him 
i  presentable  for  "nice  people."    Since  then  many  of  Garrick's  most  learned 
'  countrymen  have  racked  their  brains  to  interpret  him,  not  without  success. 
1  "One  cannot  please  every  one — not  even  you,  Tom:  and  sometimes  it  seems 
''i'j  me  that  you  can  not  even  please  yourself."    Voltaire,  too,  had  ridiculed 
him;  but  he  had  known  him,  and  feared  him  so  much  that  he  sought  to 
Imake  his  influence  innocuous  on  the  continent,  "in  punishment  for  which 

•''-  The  following  account  is  based  on  Bogh,  op.  cit.  pp.  308  ff. 
■  7:349ff. 
'  Thaarup  owned  a  farm  at  Smidstrup,  near  Vedbsk,  in  North  Sjajlland. 


22  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

crime  he  must  now  listen  to  my  tragedies  in  Elysium."  He  accuses  Thaarup 
of  kno^s-ing  but  little  of  Shakespeare,  whereas  he  knows  his  French  authors 
excellently  well.  "If  it  were  not  now  too  late,  and  you  cared  to  be  about  it, 
I  should  coimsel  you  to  learn  to  know  them  a  trifle  better,  that  3'ou  might 
see  that  your  Voltaire  was  not  ashamed  to  steal  my  gold  in  the  very  moment 
that  he  was  reviling  me  as  a  boor.  In  that  coiuitr^'  in  which  the  Gallo- 
German  Wieland  dismembered  me,  there  arose  some  excellent  folk  who 
read  me  and  understood  me  before  they  cudgelled  me,  or,  like  street 
arabs,  pointed  their  fingers  at  me  because  my  foreign  garb  was  strange 
to  them.  Take  do\\Ti  from  your  shelf  in  your  lovely  Smidstrup,  Lessing 
and  Herder,  and  Goethe  and  Garve,  and  read  them;  for  later  writers, 
I  suppose,  you  would  condemn  imread.  When  you  have  read  them,  I 
dare  say  you  will  judge  more  generously  of  me.  But  what  do  I  say?  Judge? 
Obviously  you  can  not  judge  in  a  case  in  which  you  are  entirely'-  ignorant. 
.  .  .  From  what  source  do  j^^ou  know  me,  Tom?  My  peculiar  ancient 
speech  it  is  too  late  for  3^ou  to  learn.  .  ,  .  You  know  me  through  cut- 
tings and  adaptations,  wherein  my  spirit  and  the  form  which  houses  it  are 
alike  destroyed.  Or  you  know  me  from  Wieland,  whom  I  have  mentioned 
before;  or  from  Eschenbiu-g,  to  whom  I  owe  much;  or  from  A.  W. 
Schlegel,  to  whom  I  owe  most  of  all;  or  from  my  Danish  translators,  Rosen- 
feldt,  Rahbek,  Sander,  Meisling,  and  Foersom.  Of  a  truth,  Tom,  I 
think  3^ou  are  talking  sheer  stuff  about  me,  or  that  you  know  me  only 
through  the  old  translation  of  Hamlet,  and  in  Rosenfeldt's  more  com- 
mendable than  successful  effort  to  translate  several  of  my  plains  for  his 
cotmtr>^men."  .  .  .  "In  the  last  of  your  books  against  the  Jews,  3"ou 
have  contemptuously  dismissed  two  of  my  plays  which  have  not  only  been 
my  own  favorites,  but  dear  also  to  others,  namely  King  Lear  and  Mac- 
beth. This  is  not  strange,  since  j'^ou  do  not  know  me,  and  consider  your- 
self quite  a  different  being,  as,  indeed,  you  are.  When  I  died  at  fifty-two, 
I  had  written  only  thirty-six  great  plays,  besides  many  sonnets.  You 
had  written  at  the  same  age  three  farces  which  the  occasion  favored  and 
the  music  improved."  .  .  .  "Your  talk  about  King  Lear  is  far  from  being 
as  'sharp  as  the  sting  of  a  bee' ;  it  is  duU,  and  the  noise  of  it  is  like  the 
slow  and  lazy  hum  of  a  drone.  .  .  .  You  are  not  merely  ignorant;  you 
are  coarse."  After  a  passage  hardly  less  coarse  than  Thaarup's  oy^ti, 
"Shakespeare"  closes  in  a  more  friendly  tone  of  rmld  correction.  "Foer- 
som stiU  retained  his  good  temper. 

A  few  months  later  his  work  was  done.  It  was  incomplete,  indeed, 
but  it  was  splendid  and  permanent.  "He  was  a  poet,"  says  Oehlenschlager 
of  him  in  his  Memoirs;  "his  translation  of  Shakespeare  marks  an  epoch. "^^ 

"  OehlenschlcBgers  Erindringer.     Sammendragne  og  udgivne  ved  F.  L.  Liebenberg  og  Otto  Borchsenius, 
p.  311.    Kjobenhavn.    1872. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  23 

After  his  death,  Foersom's  work  was  continued  by  P.  F.  Wulff,  a 
captain  in  the  navy.  The  first  volume,  containing  one  play  and  part  of 
another  from  Foersom's  hand,  appeared  in  1818;  the  remainder  irregu- 
larly from  that  date  till  1825.^"  Perhaps  the  fairest  judgment  on  Wulff's 
danishing  of  Shakespeare  is  that  of  his  biographer  in  Dansk  Biografisk 
Leksikon — "a  creditable  performance  for  its  day."  More  can  hardly  be 
said.  He  is  faithful,  competent,  and  usually  a  little  pedestrian,  though 
now  and  then  the  original  inspires  him  to  something  not  far  below  Foer- 
som's level.  This  is  particularly  true  of  the  following  from  Cymbeline — 
lachimo's  description  of  Imogen  in  her  bed. 

Hvor  skjon  Du  er  paa  Leiet !     Friske  Lilie, 
Langt  hvidere  end  Dit  Lagen!     Gid  jeg  torde! — 
et  Kys,  kun  Eet ! — Rubiner  uden  Lige, 
I  smykke  Laeben — Hendes  Aande.spreder 
sin  Vellugt  overalt,  og  Lysets  Flamme 
mod  hende  boier  sig,  og  titter  under 
de  lugte  Oielaag,  for  der  at  mode 
det  skiulte  Lys,  som  under  disse  Vinduer 
er  funklende:     Azur  i  Snee  indfattet, 
det  Blaae  af  Himlens  Blaae.     Nu  til  mit  Vasrk ! 
til  min  Erindring  jeg  nedskriver  alt: 
Saadanne  Malerier — Vinduet  der — 
og  Sengens  Pryd — Tapeter  med  Figurer — 
Saa  og  saaledes — samt  Historiens  Indhold. — 
Blot  et  naturlig  Tegn  paa  hendes  Legem, 
meer  end  ti  tusinde  Optegnelser 
af  Huusgeraad,  var  stscrkere  Beviis. 
O  Sovn,  du  Dodens  Abe,  lul  du  hende ! 
Gior  hendes  Sandser  liig  et  Monument 
som  ved  et  Gravsted  hviler ! — Vser  Du  mit ! 
[tager  et  Armbaand  af  hendes  Arm] 

The  only  review  of  Wulff  I  have  been  able  to  find  is  one  by  Dr.  Simon 
Meisling,  in  Dansk  Liter aturtidende}^  In  this  article  occurs  the  fine  eulogy 
of  Foersom  already  quoted;  but  Meisling  is  more  than  fair  also  to  Wulff. 
He  dismisses  as  mere  peccadillos  slight  verbal  inaccuracies.  "Such  blun- 
ders are  inevitable  in  the  very  nature  of  the  language  and  the  metre.  He 
who  succeeds  in  giving  us  all  of  Shakespeare  with  the  accuracy  and  spirit 
of  Foersom  and  his  successor,  will  merit  the  ungrudging  thanks  of  the 
nation." 

<o  William  Shakespeare:  Tragiske  Vxrker.  Sjette-Niende  Deel.  Oversatte  af  Peter  Frederik  Wulfif. 
The  plays  translated  by  Foersom  are:  I,  Julius  Caesar,  Hamlet  (1807);  II,  Lear,  Romeo  and  Juliet  (1811); 
III,  Richard  II,  1  Henry  IV  (1815);  IV,  2  Henry  IV,  Henry  V  (1816);  and  of  Volume  V,  /  Henry  VI  and 
2  Henry  VI,  Act  I.  Wulfif  translated,  of  Volume  V,  2  Henry  VI,  Acts  II-V,  and  all  of  the  remaining  plays: 
Volume  VI,  3  Henry  VI,  Richard  III  (1818);  VII,  Othello,  Coriolanus  (1819);  VIII.  King  John,  Henry  VIII 
(1821);  IX,  Cymbeline,  As  You  Like  It  (1825). 

«  Dansk  Literaturtidende  no.  17:356  ff.  and  283  £f.     1819. 


24  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

A  half-hearted  attempt  to  meet  this  implied  demand  for  a  complete 
Shakespeare  was  made  in  the  years  1845-50  by  the  publishing  house  of 
Schubothe.''^  The  new  edition  was  eclectic,  to  say  the  least,  obviously 
issued  to  meet  a  demand  in  the  book-trade.  Schubothe  reprinted, 
with  only  slight  orthographical  changes,  the  five  volumes  of  Foersom. 
To  this  were  added  the  four  volumes  of  Wulff,-  "edited  b}'-  Offe  Ho^^er," 
and  two  supplementary  volimies,  also  edited  by  Hoyer,  containing  Twelfth 
Night,  Macbeth,  The  Merchant  of  Venice,  and  Measure  for  Measure.  The 
text  of  Macbeth  is  simply  a  reprint  of  Foersom' s  adaptation  of  Schiller,  which 
Hoyer  incorporated  into  the  new  edition,  as  he  says,  for  the  sake  of  com- 
pleteness. He  made  a  few  editorial  changes,  indeed,  and  indicated  the  usual 
stage  cuttings.  The  Merchant  of  Venice  is  the  so-called  Rahbek  trans- 
lation, of  1827;  and  Measure  for  Measure  is  a  new  translation  by  Hoyer. 
Who  the  translator  of  Twelfth  Night  was,  is  doubtful.  It  was  probably 
Wulff,  since  the  translation  follows  directh^  the  plays  done  by  him,  with 
nothing  to  indicate  a  separate  hand. 

Hoyer's  revision  of  Wulff  is  painstaking,  but  neither  radical  nor  note- 
worthy. He  altered  in  the  direction  of  greater  literalness  without  chang- 
ing the  literary  quality,  to  say  nothing  of  improving  it.  Of  such  a  task 
he  was  constitutionally  incapable.  His  translation  of  Measure  for  Measure 
is  not  of  a  character  to  inspire  admiration  for  his  powers,  although  the}'"  are 
biJ-  no  means  contemptible.  He  managed  fairly  well  Isabella's  plea 
for  mercy : 

Isabella:  For  seent?  ak  nei,  naar  jeg  har  talt  et  Ord, 

jeg  kan  tilbagekalde  det.     Tro  mig, 

at  intet  Attribut  paa  Herskervaslden, 

ei  Kongekrone,  Rigsforstander-Svasrdet, 

ei  Marskalkstaven  eller  Dommerskrudet, 

ei  noget  smykker  halvt  med  saadan  Glands 

som  Naaden  gjor.     Var  han  i  Eders  Sted 

og  I  i  hans,  som  han  I  havde  snublet; 

dog  han  ei  Eders  Strenghed  havde  viist. 

Angelo:  Jeg  beder  Jer  hold  inde. 

Isabella:  Algode  Gud,  besad  jeg  blot  Jer  Magt, 

og  var  I  Isabella !     Stod  det  saa, 

jeg  viste  hvad  det  var  at  vaere  Dommer, 

og  hvad,  en  Fange. 

Lucid  [af sides]:      Rigtigt,  det  er  Maaden! 

Angelo:  Til  Loven  Eders  Broder  er  hjemfalden, 

og  Eders  Ord  I  spiller  kun. 

**  William  Shakespeare:  Dramatiske  Varker.  Oversatte  af  Peter  Foersom.  1-4  Deel.  Kiobenhavn. 
1845-46. 

5  DeeL    Oversat  af  Peter  Foersom  og  P.  F.  Wulff.    Kjobenhavn.    1847. 

6-9  Deel.    Oversatte  af  P.  F.  Wulff.    Udgivne  og  gjennemsete  af  Offe  Hoyer.    Kjobenhavn.    1848-50. 

10-11  DeeL  Oversatte  af  P.  F.  Wulff  m.  fl.  Udgivne  og  gjennemsete  af  Offe  Hoyer.  Kjobenhavn. 
1850. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  25 

Isabella:  Akveemig! 

Alverden  var  hjemfalden  til  Guds  Vrede, 
og  han,  som  kunde  lade  Straffen  udgaae, 
udfandt  Forsoningen.     Hvor  gik  det  Eder 
hvis  Han,  som  Dommen  holder  i  sin  Haand, 
Jer  domte  som  I  er?     Betaenk  blot  det, 
og  Naaden  vil  paa  Eders  Laber  aande 
med  Barnets  Uskyld. 

Nearly  a  decade  later,  Froken  Sille  Beyer,  famous  for  her  unfortu- 
nate stage  adaptations  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  undertook  to  prepare  a  third 
"revised  and  enlarged"  edition  of  Foersom  and  Wulff.'*^  She  believed 
that  such  a  revision  was  demanded  by  the  changes  which  the  language 
had  undergone  during  the  fifty  years  since  Foersom's  first  volume  appeared. 
If  it  is  necessary  to  keep  the  language  of  a  translation  of  a  foreign  classic 
up  to  date,  her  contention  was  doubtless  sound.  But  it  may  fairly  be 
questioned  whether  too  much  is  not  lost  in  the  process  when  the  trans- 
lation itself  has  become  a  classic.  Certainly  the  task  demands  tact  of  a 
high  order,  and  respect,  not  merely  for  the  original  but  for  the  translation. 
Now  these  were  the  very  qualities  which  Sille  Beyer  did  not  possess.  We 
need  not  wonder,  therefore,  that  her  attempt  fell  flat,  and  that  the  review- 
ers dealt  harshly  with  it. 

Only  two  plays,  Hamlet  and  Julius  Caesar,  were  ever  published.  The 
first  critic  to  take  them  in  hand  was  Clemens  Petersen,  best  known  to  us 
for  his  profound  influence  on  Bjornson  and  his  mistaken,  if  often  keen, 
review  of  Peer  Gynt.  The  reader  who  is  interested  in  knowing  what  a  critic 
well-versed  in  Hegel  could  do  to  a  victim  should  turn  to  Petersen's  articles 
in  Fcedrelandet.^ 

It  is  dangerous  to  tinker  with  Foersom's  work,  he  writes,  "for  it  has 
qualities  that  put  it  on  a  level  with,  if  not  above,  any  translation  of  Shake- 
i  speare.  The  German  by  Tieck  and  Schlegel,  and  the  Swedish  by  Hagberg 
;  show  a  sharper  critical  sense  and  sounder  philological  learning,  but  none 
I  of  them  has  reproduced  Shakespeare  with  the  force  and  inspiration  of 
i  Foersom.  He  has  a  miraculous  power  of  imitation.  .  .  .  There  is  such 
!  dash  and  resonance  in  it,  that  one  might  believe  that  one  was  reading  an 
I  original  work.  Such  a  translation  is  an  ornament  to  any  literature." 
I  Faults  there  are,  to  be  sure;  Germanisms  are  rather  too  abundant;  certain 
!  expressions  are  obsolete;  the  word  order  now  and  then  is  unnecessarily 
J  inverted,  and  a  few  passages  which  sound  well,  prove  on  close  examination 
i  to  be  meaningless.  But  manifestly  Sille  Beyer  is  not  the  person  to  under- 
i  take  the  revision.  "She  does  not  always  revise  where  revision  is  necessary. 
I  .  .  .  And  her  changes  are  so  numerous  that  even  one  fourth  of  them 
i 

[  "  William  Shakespeare:  Dramaliske  Varker.     Oversatte  af  Peter  Foersom,  P.  P.  Wulfl  og  fl.  Tredjc 

'   forogede  Udgave.    Gjennemseet  af  Sille  Beyer.    Kjbbenhavn.     1859. 
I  "  Nos.  210  (October  6,  1859)  and  222. 


26  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

would  be  too  man}^;  often  they  are  positively  incorrect,  and  as  a  rule, 
thev  are  so  completely  without  reason  that  they  can  be  characterized  only 
as  egregious  blunders.  And  her  style,  so  far  as  it  is  possible  to  judge  of  it 
from  isolated  lines,  has  about  it  something  sugary-sweet  and  feeble  which 
is  as  far  from  Foersom  as  it  is  from  Shakespeare."  This  sweeping  indict- 
ment Petersen  then  proceeds  to  establish  through  several  columns  of  fine 
newspaper  print.  And  no  dispassionate  reader  will  doubt  that  he  proves 
his  case. 

Sille  Beyer  bravely  attempted  a  rejoinder  to  this  terrific  onslaught,^^ 
pleading,  rather  inappositely,  the  success  of  her  adaptations  for  the  stage 
and  the  approval  of  J.  L.  Heiberg  of  her  work.  Save  that  she  justified, 
in  some  measure,  her  translation  of  one  line,^^  she  makes  little  headway. 
In  truth  she  had  no  case.  Petersen  had  advised  her  to  leave  Foersom  alone 
and  take  up  rather  those  plays  which  he  had  left  untranslated.  At  the 
close  of  her  pamphlet,  after  a  mild  little  sally  at  the  pretensions  of  critics, 
she  announces  that  she  has  aheady  followed  his  advice  and  is  now  at  work 
on  Antony  and  Cleopatra. 

The  task  which  Sille  Beyer  left  unfinished,  and  which  everyone,  even 
her  critics,  deemed  desirable,  a  cautious  modernization  of  Foersom  and  a 
new  translation  of  the  plays  not  translated  by  him,  was  taken  up  in  1861 
by  Conrector  Edvard  Lembcke,  of  the  Latin  school  at  Haderslev  (Haders- 
leben)  in  North  Slesvig.  He  was  a  man  of  fine  feeling  and  eager  enthusi- 
asm, who  had  won  the  affection  of  his  countrymen  in  his  battle  for  Danish 
nationality  and  Danish  speech  in  the  duchy.  With  a  courage  and  per- 
sistence which  none  of  his  predecessors  save  Foersom  had  displayed,  he 
carried  the  great  enterprise  through  to  the  end. 

Lembcke  seems  to  have  felt  from  the  outset  that  what  was  needed 
was  not  a  revision  but  a  completely  new  translation.*^  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  so  long  as  he  is  dealing  with  Foersom's  work,  his  revision  follows 
the  older  translation  closely.  On  the  other  hand,  he  has  no  respect  for 
Wulff  and  Hoyer,  and  refashions  their  translations  without  compunction. 
The  first  edition  of  Lembcke,  now  the  standard  text  of  Shakespeare  in  Dan- 
ish, was  published  in  seventeen  volumes  between  1861  and  1873.*^    When 

*•  /  Anledning  af  Zn  Z's  Anmeldehe  i  Fadrelandet.    Kjdbenhavn.    1860. 
*•  I  samme  Skabning  som  den  dode  Konge. 
Shakespeare  has: 

In  the  same  figure  like  the  king  that's  dead. 
And  Foersom: 
I  samme  Skikkelse  som  salig  Kongen 

Hamlet,  I,  1. 
"  Cf.  preface  to  the  first  edition,  1861. 

"  William  Shakespeare:  Dramatiske  Vcerker.  Oversatte  af  P".  Foersom.  3.  Udgave.  Omarbeidet  af 
Edvard  Lembcke.  1-18  Deel.  Kjobenhavn.  1861-73.  (Fra  6.  Deel  med  Titel,  William  Shakespeares 
Dramatiske  Vcerker.  Oversatte  a£  P.  Foersom  og  Edvard  Lembcke.)  Samt  tillige  med  andet  Titelblad: 
William  Shakespeares  Dramatiske  Varker.    Oversatte  af  Edvard  Lembcke.     10  vols. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE 


27 


completed,  the  work  included  all  the  plays  in  the  Shakespeare  canon 
save  Titus  Andronicus  and  Pericles.^^  Six  plays,  Timon  of  Athens,  The 
Winter's  Tale,  Troilus  and  Cressida,  Antony  and  Cleopatra,  Two  Gentle- 
men of  Verona,  and  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew,  were  here  translated  for 
the  first  time  into  Danish,  and  a  new  translation  of  Macbeth  replaced 
the  old  Foersom-Schiller.  There  was  a  second,  so-called  "revised"  edi- 
tion of  Lembcke  in  1877-79,^°  and  a  third  in  1897-1900.^1  The  separate 
plays,  of  course,  have  been  reprinted  countless  times  in  copies  without 
number.  The  successive  revisions,  as  anyone  who  will  take  the  trouble 
can  easily  satisfy  himself,  are  revisions  only  in  name.  Variants  are  so 
few  and  so  slight  as  to  be  negligible. 

Lembcke's  translations  are  today  so  easily  accessible  that  it  would 
be  a  work  of  supererogation  to  give  any  specimens,  but  it  is  desirable, 
I  think,  to  quote  at  least  a  part  of  the  balcony  scene  from  Romeo  and 
Juliet,  that  the  reader  may  see  how  heavily,  in  his  best  passages,  he  leans 
on  Foersom: 

Den  leer  ad  Skrammer,  som  blev  aldrig  saaret. — 

[Julie  viser  sig  i  sit  Vindve] 
Men  tys!     Hvad  straaler  gjennem  vindvet  hist? 
O,  der  er  Ost,  og  Julie  er  Solen ! 
Staa  op,  du  favre  Sol,  og  draeb  kun  Maanen, 
den  avindsyge;  hun  er  bleg  af  Harme 
fordi  hun  seer,  at  Tjenerinden  er^^ 
langt  skjonnere  end  hun.     O,  hvorfor  vil 
du  tjene  hende?  hun  er  fuld  af  Nid. 
Se,  hendes  Vestalindedragt  er  gusten 
og  bleg,  kun  skabt  for  Daarer;  kast  den  bort! 
Det  er  mit  Hjertes  Dronning,  o,  det  er 
min  Elskede ! — O,  vidste  hun,  hun  var  det ! — 
Hun  taler; — dog  hun  siger  Intet; — Intet? 
Jo,  hendes  Oie  taler; — jeg  vil  svare; — 
jeg  er  for  dristig;  ei  til  mig  hun  taler. — 
To  af  de  skjonneste  blandt  Himlens  Stjerner 
fik  andet  .^rend  og  bad  hendes  Oine 
at  skinne  for  dem,  til  de  kom  tilbage. 
Hvis  hendes  Oine  nu  var  der  og  de 
i  hendes  Ansigt! — o  de  vilde  skjaemmes 
af  hendes  Kinders  Glands  som  Lampens  Skin 
af  Dagens  Lys;  men  hendes  Oine  vilde 
paa  Himlen  straale  med  saa  klar  en  Glands 

*'  These  plays  have  not  been  done  into  Danish. 

"  William  Shakespeares  Dramaliske  Vcerker.  Oversatte  af  Edvard  Lembcke.  Anden  gjennemsete 
Udgave.     1-18  Bind.    Kjobenhavn.     1877-79. 

"  William  Shakespeares  dramaliske  VcBrker.  Oversatte  af  Edvard  Lembcke.  Tredje  gjennemsete 
Udgave.  1-9  Bind.  KjObenhavn.  1897-1900.  Reprinted  in  five  volumes  as  a  popular  subscription  edition, 
1910-11. 

"  The  first  edition  has: 

fordi  du,  hendes  Tjenerinde,  er  etc. 


28  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

at  Fuglen  sang  og  troede  det  var  Morgan. 

Se,  hvor  hun  stotter  Kinden  paa  sin  Haand: 

o,  var  jeg  Handsken  nu  paa  hendes  Haand 

og  rorte  denne  Kind ! 

Julie:  Ak! 

Romeo:  Tys,  hun  taler ! — 

Tal  atter,  Lysets  Engel !  thi  saa  herlig 

du  straaler  her  i  Natten  over  mig 

sort!  en  af  Herrens  vingede  Keruber 

for  Dodeliges  himmelvendte  Oine 

der  stirre  med  tilbagebojet  Hoved, 

imens  imag  han  rider  Skyens  Ganger 

og  sejler  sagtelig  paa  Luftens  Barm. 

Julie:  O,  Romeo,  hvorfor  er  du  Romeo? 

Fornaegt  din  Fader,  og  forkast  dit  Navn ! 

vil  du  ej  det,  da  svasrg  at  du  er  min ! 

og  jeg  er  ikke  mer  en  Capulet." 

On  the  whole,  Lembcke's  translation  deserves  its  commanding  posi- 
tion. It  is  sound  and  readable,  even  if  it  is  not  usually  inspired.  Errors 
of  translation,  a  few  serious,  many  venial,  may  be  found  in  any  play  one 
chooses  to  examine.  This  rather  ungracious  operation  has  been  performed 
with  great  skill,  and  not  without  a  certain  zest,  by  Dr.  Edvard  Brandes. 
Writing  in  PoUtiken  newspaper  of  Copenhagen  on  the  occasion  of  a  perform- 
ance of  Romeo  and  Juliet,^^  he  charges  Lembcke  with  carelessness  or  in- 
competence, or  both.  Very  little  philological  acumen  has  gone  into  the 
work  of  translation,  he  declares.  "Many  good  variant  readings  are  not 
used  at  all,  and  occasionally  there  are  mistakes  for  which  no  text  offers 
an  excuse.  In  one  instance  a  speech  which  belongs  to  Lady  Montague 
is  given  to  Montague,  and  there  are  other  instances  of  the  same  sort.  And 
the  curious  thing  is  that  these  errors  go  through  edition  after  edition." 
.  .  .  "The  only  revision,  indeed,  seems  to  have  been  the  proofreading. 
Romeo,  and  Juliet  is  a  weak  dilution  of  Foersom.  Lembcke  modernized 
all  the  archaic  expressions,  but  retained  quite  properly  Foersom's  fine^B 
imitations  of  the  original  verses,  and  the  vigor  and  grand  style  of  the  prose.  W 
Hence  there  is  in  the  Romeo  and  Juliet  which  Danes  now  read  a  good  deal 
which  could  not  be  improved — some  of  the  speeches  of  the  lovers,  the 
death  of  Mercutio,  magnificently  done,  Capulet's  wrath,  and  a  few  bits 
in  the  speeches  of  the  servants.  On  the  other  hand,  the  translation  suffers 
from  a  nimiber  of  high  crimes  against  Shakespeare's  poetry,  the  English 
language,  and  common  sense."  It  is  difficult  to  explain  Lembcke's  fre- 
quent carelessness.  He  had  before  him  a  great  drama,  a  good  Danish  trans- 
lation, and  the  whole  body  of  Shakespearean  criticism,  and  yet  he  allowed 

"  Romeo  og  Julie,  II,  2.     The  quotation  is  from  the  third  edition  (1897-1900).     The  second  edition 
(1878)  is  identical  with  this;  the  first  differs  only  as  indicated  in  preceding  note. 
"  PoUtiken  January  7,  1900. 


t 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  29 

the  most  astonishing  things  to  get  into  print.  In  support  of  this  severe 
arraignment,  Dr.  Brandes  offers  a  formidable  mass  of  evidence : 

1.  Lady  Capulet  speaks  to  Juliet  of  Paris  as  "this  precious  book  of 
love,  etc."    Lembcke  translates: 

Saa  kostelig  en  Elskovsbog  vil  kraeve 

Et  kostbart  Bind,  der  kan  dens  Skjonhed  haeve, 

som  Fisken  leger  i  den  blanke  Bolge, 

saa  vil  sig  Skjonhed  bedst  i  Skjonhed  dolge.     (I,  3) 

What  Shakespeare  says  is:  "Denne  kostelige  Elskovsbog,  denne  ubundne 
(uinbundne)  Elsker,  savner  et  Baand  (Bind) .  Fisken  lever  endnu  uf angen 
i  Soen,  etc."^^ 

2.  It  is  easy  to  find  mistakes  in  isolated  words.  Lembcke  translates 
frank  by  freidigt  in  Juliet's  speech  (II,  2) :  Kun  for  at  give  dig  det  Jreidigt 
atter.5^ 

3.  Juliet  says  to  Friar  Laurence  (IV,  1).: 

Snart  denne  Kniv  gjor  blodigt  Skel  imellem 
mig  og  min  Jammer;  den  skal  klare  Sagen, 
som  Vasgten  af  din  Alder  og  din  Kunst 
ej  kunde  bringe  haederligt  til  Ende.^'' 

"The  style  is  awful!  Klare  Sagen,  Vcegten  af  din  Alder!  And  what  is  meant 
by  the  monk's  Kunsif  The  original  has  Art,  which  means  Kundskab,  Erfar- 
ingV 

4.  Again,  Lembcke  has  frequently  omitted  puns.  It  may  be  that 
these  are  not  an  essential;  yet  if  one  is  making  an  artistic  translation, 
they  ought,  at  least,  to  be  attempted.  A  conspicuous  example  of  Lembcke's 
failure  is  found  in  Act  III,  L    Mercutio  says  to  Benvolio: 

"  This  precious  book  of  love,  this  unbound  lover. 

To  beautify  him  only  needs  a  cover: 

The  fish  lives  in  the  sea;  and  'tis  much  pride 

For  fair  without  the  fair  within  to  hide. 

Foersom,  too,  has  misunderstood  the  passage,  or  what  is  more  likely,  in  view  of  his  method,  simply 
dodged  the  pun.    He  translates  as  follows: 

hiin  uindbundne  Elskovsbog  kun  savner 

et  Bind  som  kierligen  den  rige  Skat  omfavner: 

Fisk  gaaer  useet  i  Hav,  og  dobbelt  skiOndt  det  er, 

at  indre  Skiondt  ei  sees  for  ydre  saa  som  her. 
••  But  to  be  frank,  and  give  it  thee  again. 

Foersom  has: 

Kun  for  at  vaere  fri,  og  dig  den  give. 
"  'Twixt  my  extremes  and  me  this  bloody  knife 

Shall  play  the  umpire;  arbitrating  that 

Which  the  commission  of  thy  years  and  art 

Could  to  no  issue  of  true  honour  bring. 

Foersom's  translation  is  not  accurate,  but  it  is  much  superior  to  Lembcke's: 

flux  denne  Kniv  som  blodig  Voldgiftsmand 
imcllem  mig  og  min  navnlose  Jammer: 
den  skal  afgiore  det,  din  Kraft,  din  Alder, 
din  Kunst  ei  hsederligt  fuldbringe  kunde. 


30  .AFARTIN  B.  RUUD 

Dit  Hoved  er  saa  fuldt  af  Kiv  og  Strid  som  et  ^g  af  Blommer,  og  dog  er  dit 
Hoved  mangcn  god  Gang  blevet  slaaet  til  Roraeg  for  din  Kivagtighed. 

"Og  dog — ^but  there  is  no  antithesis.  If  his  head  is  full  as  an  egg,  it 
may  vcrv  properly  be  scrambled  in  quarreling.  Shakespeare  actually  has 
not  Rorcog  but  Vindcsg.    The  antithesis  is  between  a  fiill  and  an  empty  egg."^^ 

5.  "A  little  later — as  an  instance  of  the  omitted  puns  which  are  replaced 
by  the  most  senseless  interpolation — we  find  the  following  dialogue  in 
Lembcke  ?^ 

Bekvolio:  Var  jeg  saa  grisk  paa  Klammeri  som  Du,  saa  laa  jeg  i  sorten  Mulci 
inden   Aften.      Men   ved   mit  kivagtige   Hoved — Kommer  ikke   der   Capuletterne? 

[Tybalt  og  fiere  trcede  ind] 
IMercutio:  Ved  det  jeg  traeder  paa — jeg  aenser  dem  ikke. 

"The  first  abstirdity  here  is  that  Benvolio  swears  bj^  his  quarrelsome 
head ;  whereas  he  is  not  quarrelsome  at  all  .  .  .  And,  second,  why  does 
Mercutio  swear  by  what  he  treads  upon?  The  original  says  ...  I 
niake  an  attempt  at  the  pun: 

Bekvolio:  Var  jeg  saa  tilbojelig  til  Klammeri  som  Du,  saa  vilde  jeg  saelge  mit 
Liv  som  Hggendefae  inden  fern  Kvarter. 
Mercutio:  O,  Du  liggende  Fae. 

Benvolio:  Ved  mit  Hoved — der  har  vi  Capuletterne. 
Mercutio:  Ved  min  Hsd — jeg  er  lige  glad."^" 

To  beg  the  question  in  this  fashion,  continues  Dr.  Brandes,  would 
not  be  so  bad  if  we  were  always  sure  of  getting  Shakespeare's  meaning. 
But  we  are  not.    Consider  the  following  (Act  IV,  1) : 

Paris:  Hvor  glaedelig  jeg  traf  min  Hustru  her! 
Julie:  Kanske,  naar  forst  Jeg  Eders  Hustru  er. 
Paris:  Det  kan  ske,  skal  ske,  Torsdag  kommer  snart. 

Julie's  speech  is  stark  nonsense.     The  original  is  quite  different.     Dr. 
Brandes  suggests  the  following  rendering: 

Paris:  Vel  modt,  min  Hustru — og  min  Soster. 
Julie:  Vel  modt, — maaske  naar  forst  jeg  Hustru  er.^^ 

^  Thy  head  is  as  full  of  quarrels  as  an  egg  is  full  of  meat;  and  yet  thy  head  hath  been  beaten  as  addle 
as  an  egg  for  quarreling. 
59  Act  III,  1. 

'"  Benvolio:    An  I  were  so  apt  to  quarrel  as  thou  art,  any  man  should  buy  the  fee  simple  of  my  life  for 
an  hour  and  a  quarter. 

Mercutio:    The  fee  simple!    O  simple! 
Benvolio:    By  my  head,  here  come  the  Capulets. 
Mercutio:    By  my  heel,  I  care  not. 

Lembcke  has  taken  the  passage,  with  non-essential  changes,  from  Foersom. 

Dr.  Brandes  would  hardly  contend  that  "inden  fem  Kvarter"  is  an  exact  rendering  of  "for  an  hour 
and  a  quarter."  Literally,  Benvolio  says:  "Var  jeg  saa  tilboielig  til  Klammeri  som  Du,  saa  vilde  jeg  sselge 
mit  Liv  som  Liggendefae  for  fem  Kvarter."  That  is  to  say,  he  would  count  on  having  about  an  hour  and 
a  quarter  to  live. 

n  That  may  be,  sir,  when  I  may  be  a  wife. 
Foersom  is  even  farther  off: 
Brud  er  jeg  forst,  naar  Kirkens  Baand  er  bundet. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  31 

For  of  course  Juliet  does  not  intend  to  say  that  she  may  be  Paris'  wife. 
After  one  or  two  further  instances  of  this  sort,  the  critic  turns  to  the 
passage  in  the  balcony  scene  where  Romeo  calls  Juliet  the  sun,  and  con- 
tinues, according  to  Lembcke: 

Maanen 

er  bleg  af  Harme, 

fordi  Du,  hendes  Tjenerinde,  er 
langt  skjonnere  end  hun. 

This  figure,  he  thinks,  is  altogether  too  involved  for  ordinary  mortals. 
The  whole  thing  is  not,  perhaps,  easy  for  those  not  versed  in  mythology, 
but  it  is  better  in  Foersom : 

Staae  op,  o  favre  Soel !  og  drseb  Diana; 
at  du,  skiondt  hendes  Tempelvogterinde, 
er  skionnere  end  hun,  det  harmer  hende. 

"Before  I  close,  I  may  remind  the  reader  that  Romeo's  monologue 
ends:  'Aa,  var  jeg  Handsken  nu  paa  hendes  Haand  og  rorte  hendes 
Kind.'  From  this  one  would  be  forced  to  conclude  that  Juliet  wore  gloves 
in  her  bedchamber  at  night.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  original  has:  *Aa, 
var  jeg  nu  en  Handske  paa  hendes  Haand. "^^ 

(O !  were  I  a  glove  upon  that  hand, 
That  I  might  touch  that  cheek.) 

So  that  Shakespeare  has  not  thought  of  Juliet  as  a  young  lady  who,  to 
protect  her  hands,  slept  with  her  gloves  on."^^ 

If  Dr.  Brandes  wished  to  show  merel}'-  that  Lembcke's  translation 
was  imperfect,  he  proved  his  case;  if  his  purpose  was  to  demonstrate  that 
it  is  altogether  inadequate  and  unworthy,  he  failed.  It  would  be  possible 
to  demolish  Foersom  and  Schlegel  and  Hagberg  in  the  same  fashion.  I 
am  convinced  from  a  rather  careful  study  of  the  standard  Danish  trans- 
lation that  its  excellences  far  outweigh  its  defects;  that,  indeed,  the  diffi- 
culties over  which  it  stumbles  are  inherent  in  the  very  process  of  translation. 

At  the  same  time,  one  wishes  that  Foersom  had  lived  to  do  all  the 
plays. 


Besides  this  main  current  of  Shakespearean  translation,  there  are 
a  number  of  tributary  streams,  some  of  them  important,  most  of  them 
of  interest  only  to  the  historian  of  literature. 

'*  Act  II,  2.    Lembcke's  translation  is  from  Foersom. . 

"  In  Poliliken  for  December  27,  1889,  Dr.  Brandes  had  already  called  attention  to  similar  errors  in  the 
translation  of  The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor.  One  of  them  is  so  grotesque  as  to  deserve  recording.  In 
Act  III,  4,  Slender  says:  "Pray  you,  uncle,  tell  Mistress  Anne  the  jest,  how  my  father  stole  two  geese  out 
of  a  pen,  good  uncle."  This  seemingly  simple  passage  Lembcke  renders:  "...  .den  Historio  da  (I) 
min  Fader  stjal  to  Gaes  ud  af  en  Pennefjaerl" 


32  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

First  in  point  of  time  are  the  translations  by  Dr.  Simon  Meisling, 
already  mentioned  as  the  generous  critic  of  Foersom.  In  Rahbek's  Mi- 
nena,  from  November,  1807  to  June,  1808,  he  published  a  translation  of 
A  Midsummer  Nighfs  Dream,^*  and  two  years  later,  under  the  title  W. 
Shakespcares'  Lystspil,^^  a  little  volume  containing  The  Merchant  of  Venice 
and  The  Tempest.  In  the  preface  to  this  volume,  Meisling  pledges  him- 
self to  scrupulous  fidelity  to  Shakespeare's  meaning  and  Shakespeare's 
poetry.  He  failed  in  both.  There  is  not  the  faintest  echo  of  Shakespeare's 
poetry  anywhere.  It  is  all  prosy,  flat,  and  feeble;  inaccurate  very  often, 
but  most  of  all,  spiritless,  for  the  chief  single  fault  is  that  pale  abstract 
words  take  the  place  of  vivid  concrete  words.  Thus  in  Shylock's  invec- 
tive against  the  Christian,  for 

Shylock,  we  would  have  moneys: 
Meisling  has: 

Shylock !  skaf  os  en  Sum. 
Again,  in  the  same  speech, 

You  that  did  vent  your  rheum  upon  my  beard, 
is  weakened  to 

I,  som  Jert  Spyt  henkastede  paa  mit  Skiseg. 

At  the  opening  of  Act  V,  in  the  lovely  dialogue  between  Lorenzo  and 
Jessica,  Meisling  translates: 

I  slig  en  Nat 

Stod  Dido  med  en  Vidie  i  sin  Haand 
Ved  vilden  Soe,  og  viftede  sin  Elsker 
Tilbage  til  sit  Land. 

for  Shakespeare's  concrete 

To  come  again  to  Carthage. 

Molbech  wrote  of  Meisling's  translations  that  they  are  "stiff  and 
precise."    They  are  not  always  precise,  and  they  are  always  stiff. 

Even  more  completely  devoid  of  spirit  and  spontaneity  is  the  trans- 
lation by  one  Etatsraad  Hedegaard  of  the  first  act  of  2  Henry  IV  in  Mi- 
nerva.^^    Here  in  the  space  of  a  few  lines  are  banalities  like 

Det  Forbigangne,  og  hvad  komme  skal 
Er  godt,  men  det  som  er,  kan  ikke  due; 

utter  inaccuracies  like 

**  SkuespU  af  Shakespeare.     Oversat  af  Candidat  Meisling.    4:141-90  and  277-300.     1807.     Continued 
in  Ny  Minerva  1:128-50.     1808. 

M  William  Shakespeare:    Lystspil.    Oversatte  ved  Simon  Meisling.    Forste  Deel.    Kiobenhavn.     1810. 
f*  Scener  fra  Shakespeares  Henrik  IV.    Anden  Deel.    Dansk  Minerva.    2  (January  to  June,  1816).    The 
translation  appeared  in  the  February,  March,  and  April  numbers,  and  covers  the  first  act. 


I 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  33 


med  hvor  stort  et  Bifald 

Velsignede  Du  ikke  Bolingbroke 

I  Himlen  ind,  langt  for  han  blev  hvad  nu 

Han  vilde  forme  til ; 


and  monstrous  meter  like  that  of 

Forelskede  nu  ere  i  hans  Grav 


Han  vandrede  bag  after  Bolingbroke. 

Oehlenschlseger's  translation  of  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream"  is  of 
another  world,  as  we  should  expect  of  the  greatest  of  Danish  poets,  then 
at  the  height  of  his  powers.  Oehlenschlaeger's  knowledge  of  English  was 
not  great,  but  he  was  helped  over  difficult  places  by  the  excellent  German 
translation  of  Tieck  and  Schlegel,  so  that  the  result,  even  from  the  point 
of  view  of  acctiracy,  is  acceptable.  More  than  that,  it  is  a  great  Danish 
poem,  an  "Efterdigtning,"  rather  than  a  translation,  of  Shakespeare. 
The  sonorous  blank  verse  of  the  first  scene  is  superb : 

Theseus:    Vor  Bryllupstime,  min  Hippolita 

Nu  naermer  sig,  og  fire  glade  Dage 

Nymaanen  bringer.     Altfor  slov  kun  dvasler 

Den  gamle  Maane,  sinker  mine  Lasngsler, 

Lig  en  Stedmoder  eller  skranten  Enke, 

Som  t^rer  paa  den  unge  Arvings  Renter. 

Hippolita:  Snart  dukke  fire  Dage  sig  i  Natten, 

Snart  drommer  Tiden  fire  Nastter  bort; 

Og  klar  skal  Maanen,  lig  en  Solverbue 

Nyspaendt  paa  Himmelen  beskue  Natten 

Da  for  vor  Hoitid. 

Theseus:  Skynd  dig,  Philostrat ! 

Og  kald  Athenerne  til  Festens  Fryd: 

Gaa,  vaek  den  flinke  lette  Glaedesaand ! 

Viis  Sorgen  bort  til  sine  Jordefasrd; 

Den  blege  Giaest  ei  passer  for  vor  Lyst. 

[Philostrat  gaaer] 
Hippolita,  jeg  tog  dig  ved  mit  Svaerd, 
Og  vandt  din  Kiasrlighed  ved  Overlast; 
Nu  aabner  jeg  din  Hu  med  bedre  Nogle: 
Med  Pragt,  med  Optog  og  med  Giaestebud. 

Better,  even  brilliant,  is  the  players'  scene  of  Act  I: 

Quince:  Er  hele  Compagniet  samlet? 

Bottom:  Det  var  nok  bedst  at  raabe  dem  op  i  Almindelighed,  Mand  for  Mand, 
efter  Listen. 

"  En  Skiarsommernats  Drom.  Lystspil  af  Shakespeare.  Oversat  af  Adam  Ochlenschleeger.  Trylrt 
hos  Brunnich  paa  Forfatterens  Forlag.  Kiiibenhavn.  1816.  Reprinted  in  Udmaerkede  Diglerv<erktr, 
otersatte  af  Oehlenschlceger.    Kjobenhavn.     1848. 


34  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

Quince:  Her  er  Listen  paa  hver  Mands  Navn,  som  i  hele  Athen  er  befunden 
dygtig,  til  at  agere  i  vort  Mellemspil,  for  Hertugen  og  Hertuginden,  paa  deres  Bryl- 
lupsdag  i  Nat. 

Bottom:  Forst,  gode  Peter  Quince,  sig  os  hvad  Stykket  handler  cm.  Raab  saa 
Actoremes  Navne,  og  kom  saa  til  Sagen. 

Quinxe:  Mare — vort  Stykke  er  den  allerbegraedeligste  Comodie,  og  den  aller- 
grusommeligste  Dod  om  Pyramus  og  Thisbe. 

Bottom:  Et  sufl&sant  Stykke  Arbeide,  det  kan  jeg  forsikkre  Eder;  og  lystigt. 
Nu,  gode  Peter  Quince,  raab  nu  Actorerne  op  efter  Listen.    Mestere,  stiller  Jer  i  Rad. 

Quince:  Svarer  mig  nu,  naar  jeg  kalder.    Nick  Bottom,  Vaeveren! 

Bottom:  Her!     Siig  mig  hvad  jeg  har  at  bestille,  og  gaae  saa  videre. 

Quince:  I,  Nick  Bottom,  er  ansat  som  Pyramus. 

Bottom:  Hvad  er  Pyramus?     En  Elsker  eller  en  Tyran? 

Quince:  En  Elsker,  som  paa  den  galanteste  Maade  drseber  sig  selv  af  Kiaerlighed. 

Bottom:  Det  vil  koste  adskillige  Taarer,  naar  det  bliver  veritabel  agert.  Naar 
jeg  gior  det,  saa  lad  Tilhorerne  have  et  Oie  med  deres  Oine.  Jeg  vil  giore  Blaest. 
Jeg  vil  hyle  paa  en  Maade! — Nu  til  de  Ovrige.  Egentlig  har  jeg  dog  meest  Anlag  til 
en  Tyran.  Jeg  kunde  praegtig  spille  en  Herkylus,  eller  en  RoUe  hvor  man  vender 
op  og  ned  paa  alting  og  slaaer  i  Stykker: 

"Snart  Klippens  Kant, 
Som  Diamant, 
En  Aabning  fandt 
I  Fasngslets  Muur. 
Og  Phobus  Karm 
Gior  kold  og  varm 
Med  Sjiaebnens  Harm 
Al  vor  Natur." 

Det  var  hoit !  Kald  nu  de  andre  Actorer.  Det  var  nu  Herkylusses  Natur,  en  Tyrans 
Natur.    En  Elsker  er  meer  forbarmelig. 

Quince:  Frands  Flute,  Bselgeflikkeren ! 

Flute:  Her,  Peter  Quince. 

Quince:  I  maae  tage  Thisbe  paa  Jer! 

Flute:  Hvad  er  Thisbe?     Er  det  en  vandrende  Ridder? 

Quince:  Det  er  den  Froken,  som  Pyramus  skal  elske. 

Flute:  Nei  Hilledod,  lad  mig  ikke  spille  Fruentimmer.  Jeg  begynder  alt  at 
faae  Skiaeg. 

Quince:  Det  siger  ingenting.  I  skal  spille  med  Maske,  og  I  kan  snakke  saa 
fiint  som  I  vil. 

Bottom:  Naar  jeg  maa  skiule  mit  Ansigt,  saa  lad  mig  ogsaa  spille  Thisbe.  Jeg 
skal  snakke  med  en  monstroslille  Stemme:  "Thisbe,  Thisbe!  Ak  Pyramus  min 
Beiler  kiaer!    Din  Thisbe  kiaer,  og  Jomfru  ski^r!" 

Quince:  Nei  vist  ikke  nei !    I  maa  spille  Pyramus;  og  Flute,  I  maae  vare  Thisbe. 

Bottom:  Godt.     Videre! 

Quince:  Robin  Starveling,  Skrasdderen. 

Starveling:  Her,  Peter  Quince! 

Quince:    Robin  Starveling !    I  maae  spille  Thisbes  Moder.    Snout,  Kiaedelfiikker! 

Snout:  Her,  Peter  Quince. 

Quince:  I,  Pyramussens  Fader;  jeg  selv  Thisbes  Fader.  Snug  Snedker,  I  har 
Lovens  RoUe.    Og  saaledes,  tajnker  jeg  er  Comodien  besat. 

Snug:  Har  I  skrevet  Lovens  Rolle  op,  saa  maae  jeg  bede  om  den;  for  jeg  har  et 
daarligt  Hoved  til  at  laere  udenad. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  35 

Quince:  I  kan  extemporere;  I  har  ikke  andet  at  giore,  end  at  brole. 

Bottom:  Lad  mig  ogsaa  spille  Lovens  RoUe!  Jeg  skal  brole,  saa  det  skal  gaae 
alle  Mennesker  til  Marv  og  Been.  Jeg  vil  brole,  saa  Hertugen  skal  sige:  Lad  ham 
brole  cm  igien !    Lad  ham  brole  om  igien ! 

Quince:  Dersom  I  giorde  det  altfor  gyseligt,  saa  blev  Hertuginden  og  Damerne 
bange.    Og  det  ver  nok,  for  at  vi  alle  kunde  blive  haengte. 

Alle:  Ja  saa  bleve  vi  hasngte,  hver  Kiasft. 

Bottom:  Ja,  dettilstaaer  jeg,  mine  Venner!  Naarl  giorde  Damerne  saa  bange,  at 
de  mistede  deres  Forstand,  saa  kunde  de  v^re  ufornuftige  nok,  til  at  ha;nge  os  op  alle- 
sammen.  Men  jeg  skal  forstcerke  min  Stemme;  jeg  skal  brole  Jer  saa  sodt,  som  en 
kurrende  Due.    Jeg  skal  brole,  saa  I  troer  at  hore  en  Nattergal. 

OehlensclilEEger  has  been  extremely  happy  in  his  handling  of  the  songs. 
His  translations  would  hardly  serve  as  a  school-boy  ''crib,"  but  they 
reproduce  felicitously  the  spirit  and  tune  of  the  original : 

Den  Tiure  med  sin  sorte  Strut, 
Og  Nasb  som  Appelsin; 
Den  uselige  Giaerdesmut, 
Samt  liden  Drossel  fiin; 


Graeshoppe,  Spurv  og  bitte  Leerke, 
Dertil  den  Giog  saa  graa, 
Der  siunge  hvad  mangen  Mand  bor  masrke, 
Men  ikke  svare  paa. 


In  1865,  when  Bjornson  gave  his  memorable  performance  of  the  play 
at  Christiania  Theatre,  it  was  to  Oehlenschlseger's  translation  that  he  turned ; 
and  in  1878,  H.  P.  Hoist  used  it  as  the  basis  of  his  stage  version  for  the 
Royal  Theatre  at  Copenhagen. 

Knud  Lyhne  Rahbek  is  a  barometer  of  the  cultivated  taste  of  Copen- 
hagen in  the  last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  the  first  third  of 
the  nineteenth  centtiry.  He  shared  its  every  enthusiasm,  not  critically, 
but  intensely,  and  with  unmistakable  sincerity.  He  was  attracted  to  Shake- 
speare very  early,  and  seems  to  have  given  up  a  project  for  a  complete  trans- 
lation only  when  Foersom  submitted  to  him  specimens  of  the  work  on  which 
he  had  already  begun.  Rahbek  did  not  cease,  however,  to  occupy  himself 
with  Shakespeare.  He  wrote  critical  and  historical  articles,  one,  at  least 
of  great  importance,  and  he  collaborated  with  A.  E.  Boye  in  a  translation 
and  stage  cutting  of  The  Merchant  of  Venice. ^^  Strangely  enough,  he  allowed 
the  printed  text  to  go  out  under  his  own  name,  and  no  one  suspected  that 
it  was  not  by  him  till  Professor  Nicolaj  Bogh  pointed  out«'  that  only  the 
first  few  pages  are  his;  the  rest  is  by  Boye.  The  translation  is  very  credit- 
able, one  can  hardly  say  more,  with  a  certain  heaviness  akin  to  that  of  Las- 
sen's in  Norwegian.^" 

«8  KiSbmanden  i  Venedig.    Lystspil  i  S  Akter.     Fordansket  til  Skuepladscns  Briig  ved  K.  L.  Rahbek. 
Ridder  af  Dannebrog.    Kicibenhavn.    1827. 
"  Dansk  Biografisk  Leksikon  2:561  ff. 
'«  Cf.  Shakespeare  in  Norway  pp.  108  ff. 


36  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

For  the  sake  of  completeness  we  must  take  account  of  H.  C.  Wose- 
mose's  Selected  Tragedies  by  William  Shakespeare.''^  The  plays  included 
in  this  collection  are  Hamlet,  Julius  Caesar,  and  King  Lear.  The  translation 
is  empliatically  pedestrian.  Despite  Wosemose's  assurance  that  he  has 
allowed  liimself  man}'-  metrical  irregularities  in  order  that  he  might  convey 
the  spirit  of  the  original,  the  reader  will  search  in  vain  for  any  hint  of  spirit. 
The  listlessness  of  the  performance,  indeed,  is  most  pronounced  in  the  scenes 
of  stirring  action  or  tense  emotion — the  opening  of  Hamlet  and  the  quarrel 
scene  in  Jidius  Caesar.  If  we  may  trust  an  announcement  in  Allernyeste 
Skildericr  af  Kjobenhavn,"^  Wosemose  planned  a  complete  translation 
of  Shakespeare.    The  tmdertaking,  however,  ended  with  the  first  volume. 

The  Selected  Tragedies  of  Wosemose  was  the  last  free  lance  trans- 
lation of  Shakespeare  for  a  generation.  The  standard  Foersom-Lembcke 
held  swa}"  undisputed.  But  in  1887-88,  Valdemar  Osterberg  published 
in  the  popular  series,  Dansk  Folkebibliotek,  three  remarkable  translations 
of  Hamlet,''^  Romeo  and  Jtdiet,''^  and  King  Lear.""  Twelve  years  later  ap- 
peared his  Selected  Dramatic  Works  of  William-  Shakespeare,  in  two  vol- 
umes, with  concise  and  informing  introductions  to  the  separate  plays  by 
Georg  Brandes.'^^  This  collection  includes  A  Midsummer  Nighfs  Dream, 
I  Henry  IV,  Twelfth  Night,  Othello,  The  Tempest,  and  thorough -going 
revisions  of  the  three  translations  published  earlier.  Finally,  in  1908, 
he  prepared  for  the  Committee  for  the  Promotion  of  Popiilar  Instruction 
a  new  translation,  with  introduction  and  notes,  of  Macbeth.'''  The  intro- 
duction is  of  the  type  so  familiar  to  us  from  American  school  editions: 
I,  The  Evolution  of  the  Drama;  II,  The  Theatre  in  the  Age  of  Shake- 
speare; III,  Shakespeare's  Youth;  IV,  Shakespeare's  Later  Life;  V,  Mac- 
beth; VI,  Shakespeare's  Place  in  Literature.  It  reveals  the  power,  not 
unusual  among  Danes,  and  rather  more  common  among  Englishmen 
and  Frenchmen  than  among  us,  of  presenting  the  fruits  of  scholarship 
in  an  interesting  way,  without  sacrificing  an5rthing  of  accuracy  or  solidity. 

The  translation  is  excellent.  Osterberg  is  a  better  scholar  than  Foer- 
som,  and  he  had  the  advantage  of  working  a  century  later.     Even  so, 

"  Udvalgte  Sorgespil  af  William  Shakespeare.     Oversat  af  H.  C.  Wosemose.     Kjdbenhavn.     Preface 
dated  November,  1833. 
"'  2,  no.  78.     1834. 

"  William  Shakespeare:     Hamlet,    Prinds  af   Danmark.   Kjobenhavn.      1S87.     Dansk    Folkebibliotek 
no.  7. 

'*  Same  as  above.    Dansk  Folkebibliotek  no.  74. 
"»  Same  as  above.    Dansk  Folkebibliotek  no.  43. 
'•  Kobenhavn.    1900.    This  collection  includes: 
Volume  I:     En  Skarsoinmernatsdrom,  Romeo  og  Julie,  Kong  Henrik  IV,  Forste   Del,  Helligtrekong- 
ersaften. 

Volume  II:    Hamlet,  Othello.  Kong  Lear,  Slormen. 
"  William  Shakespeare:     Macbeth  i  Oversaettelse  og  med  en  Indledning  af  V.  Osterberg.     Med  tolv 
Billeder.    Ved  Udvalget  for  Folkeoplysningens  Fremme.    Kobenliavn.     1908. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  37 

scholarship  is  not  all.  It  may  serve  an  editor,  but  not  a  translator.  Tact, 
imaginative  insight,  the  intuitive  power  to  discover  in  the  treasures  of  his 
own  language  the  one  word,  the  one  phrase,  which  shall  arouse  the  image 
of  the  original,  these  and  a  high  technical  skill  are  even  more  important. 
Foersom  had  them  in  a  miraculous  degree,  and  they  atone  for  much  inac- 
curacy. Osterberg,  too,  has  caught  something  of  the  inspiration.  If  it 
has  a  fault,  it  is  that  to  one  accustomed  to  Shakespeare  in  the  racy  Eliza- 
bethan English,  this  new  Danish  translation  is  too  modern.  We  have 
been  attuned  to  the  archaisms,  the  obsolete  constructions,  the  strange, 
often  half-understood,  turns  of  phrase.  For  us  these  are  a  part  of  Shake- 
speare, just  as  truly  as  they  are  a  part  of  Chaucer  or  the  King  James  Bible. 
Now,  to  modem  ears,  at  least,  Foersom  preserves  a  good  deal  of  this. 
Osterberg,  for  better  or  for  worse,  does  not.  Let  the  reader  compare  with 
the  older  translation,  this  admirable  modern  rendering  of  the  balcony  scene : 

Romeo:  Den  ler  ad  Ar  som  aldrig  fik  et  Saar. 
[Julie  kommer  til  Syne  oppe  i  sit  Vindue] 
Men  stille !  se  det  Vaeld  af  Lys  fra  Vindvet ! 
O  det  er  Osten  selv,  og  Julie  Solen. 
Rind  op,  min  Sol,  og  drseb  den  nidske  Maane, 
som  alt  er  mat  og  bleg  af  Nag,  fordi 
du  overstraaler  hende,  hvem  du  tjener. 
Hor  op  at  tjene  den  Misundelige 
og  hendes  blege,  gustne  Nonnedragt, 
den  baeres  kun  af  Daarer,  Iseg  den  bort ! 
Hun  er  min  Skat,  ja  hende  har  jeg  kaaret ! 
O  gid  hun  vidste  det ! 
Hun  taler,  nej  hun  tier.     Tier?  nej, 
thi  hendes  Oje  taler, — jeg  vil  sv^re. 
Indbildske !     Talen  gaslder  ikke  dig. 
To  af  de  skjonneste  blandt  Himlens  Stjerner 
fik  Forfald,  nu  skal  hendes  Ojne  tindre 
i  deres  Sfasre,  til  de  kommer  hjem. 
Og  om  de  byttet  Plads  med  hendes  Ojne? 
Ja,  da  fordunkled  hendes  Ansigt  dem, 
som  Daglys  Lampen;  men  fra  Luften  vselded 
saa  klart  et  Lys  af  hendes  Oines  Kilder 
saa  Fuglene  ved  Nat  slog  Morgentriller. 
Se,  hvor  hun  stotter  Hinden  i  sin  Haand ! 
O  var  jeg  nu  en  Handske  paa  din  Haand 
og  rorte  ved  din  Kind ! 
Julie:  Ak  ja! 

Romeo:  Hun  taler. 

O  tal  igen,  Lysengel,  du  som.  straaler 
deroppe  imod  Nattens  morke  Orund 
ret  som  et  vinget  Himlens  Sendebud 
for  Menncskenes  vidt  opspilte  Ojne, 
naar  de  med  Undren  bojer  sig  tilbage 
og  ser  ham  ride  paa  de  tracge  Skyer 


3S  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

og  sejle  glidende  i  Luftens  Skjod. 

Julie:  Ak,  Romeo,  Romeo!  hvorfor  er  du  Romeo? 

Fornaegt  din  Fa'r  og  sig  dig  Navnet  fra. 

Hvis  ikke,  svserg  saa  blot  at  du  er  min, 

og  jeg  er  ikke  mer  en  Capulet. 

This  is  finely  done.  But  does  it  give  the  inartictdate  sense  of  "old, 
forgotten,  far-off  things,"  as  Shakespeare  gives  it,  and  Foersom? 

The  same  criticism — a  modernity  which  dissipates  the  atmosphere 
of  Shakespeare's  English — may  be  brought  also  against  the  translations 
of  Niels  MoUer  in  his  "Shakespeare  for  the  People."''^  MoUer  is  a  com- 
petent Shakespearean  scholar  and  critic,  and  his  translation  is,  as  we  shordd 
expect,  accurate  and  clear.  There  is  a  sturd}^  and  ready  virility  about  it, 
too,  which  admirably  adapts  it  for  popular  reading.  It  may  be  questioned, 
however,  whether  the  easy  swing,  the  transparent  modern  Danish  of  Ham- 
let's soliloquy  reproduces  even  remotel}?"  the  solemn  tones  and  overtones 
of  Shakespeare: 

Det  gaelder,  vaere  eller  ikke  vasre; 
Om  det  er  mere  Sjslestort  at  taale 
den  onde  Lykkes  Slyngekast  og  Pile 
eller  at  ta  Vaaben  mod  en  So  af  Sorger 
.     og  ende  den  ved  Trods.    At  do;  at  sove — 
ej  mer;  og  saet  vi  i  en  Sovn  kan  ende 
den  Hj£erte-Ve,  de  tusind  Sting,  Naturen 
lod  Kjodet  arve;  det  er  en  Forlosning, 
vi  fromt  tor  onske  os.    At  do;  at  sove, 
at  sove,  kanske  dromme!    Det  er  Knuden; 
thi  hvad  der  vel  i  Dodens  Sovn  kan  drommes, 
naar  vi  bar  skuflbet  af  os  Jordens  Virvar, 
gor,  vi  maa  stanse:  dette  Hensyn  er  det, 
som  voider,  Kummer  faar  saa  langt  et  Liv. 
For  hvem  gad  taale  Tidens  Haan  og  Svobe; 
Voldsherrens  Tvang,  de  stolte  Msnds  Foragt 
og  vraget  Elskovs  Pine,  Rettens  Ophold, 
og  Embedshovmod,  Puf  og  Spark,  der  gives 
taalmodigt  Vaerd  af  dem,  der  intet  duer, 
naar  selv  ban  kunde  skrive  sin  Kvittering 
med  blottet  Daggert  ?     Hvem  gad  slaebe  Byrder, 
stonne  og  svede  under  Li  vets  Moje, 
hvis  ikke  Angst  for  Noget  efter  Doden, 
det  uforfarne  Land  hvis  grsense  ingen 
Rejsende  vender  hjem  fra,  lammer  Viljen, 
og  gor,  vi  heller  baer,  hvad  ondt  vi  bar, 
end  flyer  til  andet,  som  vi  ikke  kender. 
Bevidsthed  gor  os  saadan  alle  fejge, 
og  Djasrvheds  asgte  Farve  oversygnes 
paa  saadan  Vis  af  Tankens  blege  Strog; 

'»  William  Shakespeare:    Kong  Henrik  IV,  Kobmanden  i  Venedig,  Hamlet.     Kobenhavn-Kristiania.  1901. 


TRA  NSLA  TIO NS  0 F  SHA  KESPEA  RE  39 

og  Formaal  af  den  storste  Vaegt  og  Hojde 
herover  drejer  deres  Stromme  vrangt 
og  mister  Navn  af  Virke. 

Consciously  to  revive  the  language  of  a  past  age  is  not  itself  a  merit. 
Very  often  it  results  in  a  pseudo-archaism  as  ridiculous  as  the  papier- 
mache  Gothic  of  Strawberry  Hill.  But  in  a  translation  of  an  old  classic 
one  welcomes  an  illusion  of  the  speech  of  other  days.  It  need  be  only  a 
suggestion,  as  in  Butcher  and  Lang's  Odyssey,  or  a  sustained  tour  de  force, 
as  in  Morris'  translations  of  the  sagas;  in  any  event,  it  must  be  artisti- 
cally true.  Because  they  lack  it  so  completely  the  English  or  American 
reader  of  Osterberg's  and  Moller's  translations  has  a  vague  sense  of  some- 
thing missing. 

The  sense  of  something  missing  is  still  more  pronounced  in  Th.  Ewald's 
translation  of  The  Merchant  of  Venice.''^  Here  Shakespeare  has  been  done 
into  easy,  almost  colloquial,  Danish,  sparkling  and  smart,  but  not  Shake- 
spearean. The  best  thing  is  the  capital  rendering  of  Launcelot  Gobbo's 
speeches,  particularly  his  delicious  argument  as  to  whether  or  not  he  shall 
leave  the  Jew,  his  master. 


This  is  an  impressive  body  of  translation;  on  the  whole,  of  high  quality; 
and  to  it  must  be  added  certain  translations  of  Venus  and  Adonis  and 
the  sonnets. 

In  1819  Oehlenschlaeger  published  in  Rahbek's  Tilskueren  a  transla- 
tion of  seventy-nine  stanzas  of  Venus  and  Adonis,  from  the  beginning 
to  stanza  82,  omitting  40,  "Within  this  limit  is  relief  enough,"  and  67, 
"Who  sees  his  true  love  in  her  naked  bed.''^"  There  is,  as  Vilhelm  Ander- 
sen has  pointed  out,^^  a  good  deal  of  the  Dionysian  in  Oehlenschlaeger, 
a  bacchic  sensuousness,  which,  restrained  by  the  chilly  propriety  of  the 
Denmark  of  Frederick  VI,  found  expression  in  all  manner  of  indirections. 
No  doubt  the  pagan  luxuriousness  of  Shakespeare's  poem  attracted  him 
more  than  he  would  have  dared  to  confess  except  through  this  oblique 
tribute  of  a  translation.  It  has  many  merits — limpid  rhythm,  facile  rhymes, 
and  frequent  felicities  of  diction  and  imagery.  On  the  whole,  however, 
it  lacks  the  ease  and  cloying  sweetness  of  Shakespeare,  for,  taken  all  in 
all,  Oehlenschlaeger  was  a  son  of  Hellas  rather  than  of  the  Renaissance: 
the  light  about  his  Venus  and  Adonis  is  too  steady  and  white.  Consider, 
for  instance,  the  four  opening  stanzas : , 

'•  William  Shakespeare:  Kobmanden  i  Venedig,  ved  Th.  Ewald.  Illustreret  af  Gudmund  Hentze. 
Kobenhavn.     1910. 

«»  Venus  og  Adonis  af  Shakespeare.  Fordansket  ved  Ilr.  Professor  Ochlenschlajger.  Tilskueren  l:a08. 
23,  24,  and  31.  1819.  The  translation  is  reprinted  in  F.  L.  Liebenberg,  Bidrag  til  den  oehlenschlaitrske 
Literaturs  Uislorie  2:56-71.     Kjobenhavn.     1868. 

n  Cf.  Bacchusloget  i  Norden  pp.  169  £f. 


40  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

Just  medens  Solen  i  sin  Purpurpragt 

Med  vakte  Morgen  Afsked  havde  taget, 

Rodmusset  gik  Adonis  ud  paa  Jagt; 

Han  elsked  Jagt,  men  Elskov  han  forsaged. 

Syghierted  Venus  vil  ham  ei  forfeile, 

Skion  folger  hun  hans  Fied,  for  selv  at  beile. 

Hun  quad:  Med  dig  jeg  ikke  Hgnes  kan; 
Saa  huld  en  Blomst  som  du,  ei  Marken  skuer. 
Du  Nymphers  Skygge,  skion  som  ingen  Mand, 
Mer  rod  og  hvid  end  Roser  og  end  Duer ! 
Natur  dig  skabte  med  sig  selv  i  Kiv, 
Den  vidste,  Verden  endes  med  dit  Liv. 

Vel,  Undervasrk !     Saa  stands  din  Ganger  nu, 
Dens  stolte  Hoved  du  til  Sadlen  spaende. 
Foragt  kun  ei  min  Godhed,  saa  skal  Du 
Snart  tusind  skiulte  Honingglaeder  kiende. 
Her  hvisler  ingen  Snog  bag  Stenes  Dysse, — 
Sid  hos,  at  jeg  kan  quaele  dig  med  Kysse. 

O  luk  nu  ei  din  Mund  og  vrag  med  Mathed, 
Men  lad  den  hungrig  min  imode  flyve ! 
Den  blusse,  blegne  lad  med  samme  Lethed, 
Ti  Kys  saa  kort  som  eet,  eet  langt  som  Ty ve ! 
En  Sommerdag  vil  faae  en  Times  Vinge, 
Naar  vi  med  saadant  Morskab  den  tilbringe. 

Oehlenschlseger's  is  but  a  fragment;  a  complete  translation  however, 
we  do  have  from  the  hand  of  Nikolaj  Nielsen.  ^^  'pj-^g  introduction  by 
Georg  Brandes,  though  very  short,  contains  all  that  a  Danish  reader  would 
wish  to  know — the  place  of  Venus  and  Adonis  in  Shakespeare's  work; 
its  significance  in  his  own  day;  its  undiluted  paganism;  its  suggestions 
of  the  Italian  Renaissance;  the  honey-sweetness  of  the  style,  marred  for 
us  by  many  tactless  "conceits"  which  seem  the  height  of  bad  taste,  but 
which  were  then  on  the  crest  of  fashion,  and  the  marvelous  plastic  images. 
The  poem  is  like  a  succession  of  fine  poses  caught  by  a  great  painter. 
Brandes  calls  attention,  rather  cautiously,  to  the  higher  ethical  note  at 
the  close,  and  to  the  genuine  joy  in  nature  which  shines  through  all  its 
artificiaUty.  "So  immense  is  the  range  of  style  in  this  little  poem  of  Shake- 
speare's youth,  from  Ovid  to  the  Old  Testament,  from  expressions  of  an 
art  refined  to  the  point  of  artistry,  to  simple  and  splendid  expressions 
of  Nature." 

Nielsen,  like  Oehlenschlaeger,  employs  the  original  rhyme-scheme 
and  metre;  but  obviously  he  felt  himself  boimd  to  greater  literalness. 
This,  however,  he  has  secured  without  sacrificing  the  deeper  poetic  truth, 
without  which  a  translation  becomes  a  mere  "pony."  Compare  with 
Oehlenschlaeger  the  first  fotir  stanzas,    in   which   what    Rossetti    called 

*'-  Venus  og  Adonis.    Af  William  Shakespeare.     Oversat  af  Xikolaj  Nielsen.     Med  et  Forord  af  Georg 
Brandes.    Kjobenhavn.     1894. 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  41 

"literality"  is  preserved  without  the  least  injury  to  the  tone  and  spirit  of 
the  original: 

Hist  Solen  med  sit  Purpur-Ansigt  tager 

Afsked  med  graadfuldt  Gry,  og  ud  paa  Jagt 

den  rosenkindede  Adonis  jager; 

bans  Lyst  var  Jagt,  men  Elskov  hans  foragt; 

hen  til  ham  iler  Venus  syg  i  Hu 

og  taler  som  en  dristig  Beiler  nu. 

Hun  siger:     "Sode  Blomst  og  bedste  Mand! 
skon  er  jeg,  trefold  mer  man  dig  dog  skuer, 
saa  Nymfer  maa  sig  grsemme;  dig,  for  Sand 
mer  rod  end  Roser,  hvidere  end  Duer, 
Naturen  danned'  med  sig  selv  i  Kiv; 
hun  sagde,  Verden  endtes  med  dit  Liv. 

Du  Under,  hor  mig,  stig  af  Hesten  ned, 
ved  Sadelbuen  bind  dens  Hoved  fast, 
og  tusind  honnings5de  Ting  jeg  ved, 
din  Gunst  med  dem  belonner  jeg  i  Hast. 
Kom,  sast  dig  ned,  her  hvisler  ingen  Slange, 
og  jeg  vil  kvaele  dig  med  Kys  saa  lange. 

Lad  dog  ei  Laeben  mattet  fole  Lede 

men  stadig  hungrig  min  imode  flyve, 

snart  rod,  snart  hvid,  kun  om  Forandring  bede, 

ti  Kys  som  eet,  og  eet  saa  langt  som  ty ve ! 

At  Sommerdagen  som  en  Time  gaar, 

vor  hulde  Leg  saa  vel  jo  det  formaar." 

Or  take  the  following  fine  rendering  of  the  oft- quoted  description  of 
the  stallion — almost  the  genius  of  Shakespeare  is  there : 

Rund  Hov  og  korte  Led  og  Hovdusk  lang, 

bredt  Bryst,  klartOje,  Nsesebor  saa  vide, 

kort  Ore,  lidet  Hoved,  herlig  Gang, 

tynd  Manke,  Hale  tyk,  blod  Hud,  stserk  Side; — 

alt,  hvad  en  Hest  bor  have,  liavde  den, 

kun  ei  en  Rytter  paa  sin  brede  Laend. 

Altogether,  one  is  ready  to  accept  this  translation  as  definitive. 

There  exists  only  one  complete  translation  of  Shakespeare's  sonnets 
in  Danish,  Adolph  Hansen's  of  1885. ^^  It  had  been  anticipated,  however, 
by  two  slight  fragments.  Thirty  years  before  there  appeared  in  Ydun 
translations  of  Sonnets  XXVII  and  XXX, ^^  and  in  1869  Froken  Caspara 
Preetzman  ["Caralis"]  included  in  her  volumes  Digte  og  Sange  transla- 
tions of  Sonnets  LIV,  XXII,  CXLV,  XXIX,  and  LXXI.  The  transla- 
tions in  Ydun  are  mediocre  and  scarcely  call  for  more  than  mention. 
Yet  they  were  the  first,  and  for  that  reason,  if  for  no  other,  the  better 

"  Shakespeares  Soneller.     Oversatte  af  Adolf  Hansen.     Med  Indledning  og  Anraajrkninger.     KjiSben- 
havn.     1885.    Six  of  these  sonnets,  XXV-XXX,  were  published  the  year  before  in  Tilskuercn. 
M  To  Sonelter  titer  Shakespeare.     Ydun  (1855),  p.  17. 


42  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

of  the  two  should  be  disinterred  from  the  old  periodical  in  which  it  now  lies 
buried. 

Naar  op  til  mine  Tankers  tause  Moder 

Jeg  nianer  det  Forgangnes  sode  Minde, 

Ved  mangt  et  ustilt  Savn  da  Hiertet  bidder, 

Med  gammel  Qval  ny  Klage  Timer  rinde, 

Da  kan  uvante  Taarer  Oiet  vaede 

For  Venner  som  den  fule  Grav  omklamrer, 

Og  Elskovs  visne  Qval  tillive  graede, 

Mens  for  saamangen  svunden  Drom  jeg  jamrer. 

Da  kan  ved  Fortids  Lidelser  jeg  lide 

Og,  mork  i  Hu,  fra  Sorg  til  Sorg  forfolge 

De  triste  Smerters  Raekker;  hen  de  stride 

Saa  evig  friske  som  den  bittre  Bolge. 

Men,  naar  til  dig,  min  Ven,  min  Hu  jeg  vender, 
Hvert  Tab  erstattes  flux,  hver  Kummer  ender. 

(Sonnet  XXX) 

Caspara  Preetzman,  to  whom  we  owe  the  sonnet  translations  of  1867, 
was  a  second-rate  painter  and  sculptor  of  her  day,  with  a  genuine,  though 
exceedingly  weak,  flavor  of  genius.  She  was  a  catholic  lover  of  English 
literature,  and  published,  in  1866,  a  century  of  translation  of  Englisli 
poems;  none,  however,  from  Shakespeare.  Her  translations  of  the  son- 
nets are  exceedingly  free,  and  only  rarely  of  special  excellence.  Perhaps 
the  best  is  LXXI. 

Sorg  ikke  Isenger,  naar  mig  Doden  rammer, 

End  mens  Du  horer  Klokken  dump  og  dyb 

Forkynde  hoit,  at  jeg  fra  Verdens  Jammer 

Gik  bort  at  bo  blandt  alleruslest  Kryb. 

Nei !  hvis  Du  lasser  dette,  lad  forgjettes 

Den  Haand  som  skrev  det !     Du  er  mig  saa  kj  ser, 

At  for  jeg  av  din  Tanke  vil  udslettes, 

End  at  mit  Minde  skulde  gaae  Dig  naer. 

Ja,  hvis  dit  Blik  paa  disse  Vers  sig  faester 

Naar  jeg  maaskee  er  smuldret  hen  til  Leer, 

Begrav  din  Kjaerlighed  med  mine  Rester, 

Lad  selv  mit  stakkels  Navn  ei  naevnes  meer: 
Den  kloge  Verden,  hvis  din  Taare  flod, 
Dig  gjekked  med  mig  end,  naar  jeg  er  dod. 

"The  Hfe-blood  of  rhythmical  translation,"  says  Rossetti  in  his  pref- 
ace to  the  Early  Italian  Poets,  "is  the  commandment, — that  a  good  poem 
shall  not  be  turned  into  a  bad  one.  The  only  true  motive  for  putting  poet- 
ry into  a  fresh  language,  must  be  to  endow  a  fresh  nation,  as  far  as  possi- 
ble, with  one  more  possession  of  beauty."  Adolph  Hansen's  danishings 
of  English  poems  are  countless,  and  they  range  from  Beowulf  to  Swin- 
burne's Hertha,  but  without  exception  they  obey  this  first  commandment, 
and  they  do  endow  a  fresh  nation  with  new  possessions  of  beauty.    They 


TRANSLATIONS  OF  SHAKESPEARE  43 

are  marked  by  scrupulous  fidelity  to  the  original,  dignity,  and  a  subtle 
response  to  every  shift  of  rhythm  and  feeling.  This  translation  of  the 
sonnets  is  now  a  national  possession,  and  so  easily  accessible  that  it  is  super- 
fluous to  quote.  Not,  therefore,  as  a  sample  of  his  wares,  but  as  an  illus- 
tration of  his  genius,  I  give  Hansen's  rendering  of  Sonnet  XXIX: 

Naar  Mennesker  og  Lykken  bort  sig  vender, 
naar  jeg  forladt  med  Graad  i  Ojet  staar 
og  Raab  imod  den  dove  Himmel  sender, 
og  naar  jeg  dybt  forbander  mine  Kaar 

Og  en  Mands  Haab  som  Maal  for  Ojet  nsevner, 

en  andens  Trask,  en  tredjes  Vennekreds 

og  fordrer  hines  Straeben,  disses  Evner, 

med  hvad  der  mest  mig  glgeder  mindst  tilfreds, 

Foragtende  mig  selv, — da  stundom  svsever 
min  Tanke  hen  mod  dig,  og  mine  Kaar 
— som  Lserken,  der  ved  Gry  fra  Jord  sig  hssver, — 
ved  Himlens  Porte  Jubeltriller  slaar: 

Din  Kfflrlighed  slig  Rigdom  sksenker  mig, 
at  da  med  Kongers  Kaar  jeg  bytter  ej. 

Prefaced  to  the  translation  is  an  introduction  in  which  Hansen  gives 
the  objective  facts  about  the  sonnets,  the  various  theories  of  their  inter- 
pretation, the  history  of  the  sonnet  form  in  England,  and,  finally,  their 
autobiographical  significance.  The  last  section  is  the  most  important. 
Hansen  recognizes  fully  that  Shakespeare's  sonnets  are  in  respect  of  their 
form  and  much  of  their  contents  entirely  conventional.  But  that  they 
are  totally  without  biographic  value,  he  can  not  bring  himself  to  believe. 
There  are  several  indications  that  point  in  another  direction.  In  the  first 
place,  most  of  them  are  addressed  to  a  man.  Such  a  departure  from  con- 
vention is  not  without  significance.  Second,  there  are  in  these  poems 
allusions  to  such  definite  matters — souvenir  volumes,  a  rival  poet,  the 
duration  cf  their  friendship,  that  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  cf  them  as  mere 
hterary  exercises.  But  the  strongest  reason  for  believing  that  the  sonnets 
are  essentially  autobiographical  is  furnished  by  the  spirit  and  genuine 
passion  that  animate  them.  They  have  too  genuine  a  ring  to  be  mere 
poetic  fantasies  on  assigned  subjects.  And  the  notion  that  he  could  sit 
down  to  thrum  forth  lyrical  "kling-klang"  is  not  one  that  will  square 
with  what  we  know  of  Shakespeare,  the  very  tissue  of  whose  poetry  is 
life  and  experience. 

From  the  fact  that  two  of  the  sonnets,  CXXVIII  and  CXLIV,  appear 
in  a  slightly  divergent  form  in  The  Passionate  Pilgrim  (1599),  Hansen 
would  assign  the  composition  of  the  sonnets  to  the  years  1599-1602,  about 
the  poet's  fortieth  year.  "There  is  at  this  time  a  crisis  in  Shakespeare's 
life,  a  moment  at  which  all  the  experiences,  disappointments,  bitterness, 
sorrow,  and  self-reproaches  collect  in  his  now  mature  spirit,  sink  to  the 


44  MARTIiX  B.  RUUD 

bottom,  and  form  the  foundation  for  the  masterpieces  of  the  succeeding 
period,  Hamlet,  Othello,  Macbeth,  King  Lear.  In  some  of  the  sonnets  it 
is  as  though  one  heard  the  indistinct  overttires  to  these  plays.  It  is  as 
though  one  were  sailing  amid  breakers  and  heard  afar  the  dull  thunders 
of  the  storm-tossed  sea  one  is  approaching.  The  sixty-sixth  sonnet,  as  in 
a  synthesis,  gathers  that  mass  of  bitter  experiences  which  had  collected 
in  the  deeps  of  Shakespeare's  soiil." 

Here,  of  course,  is  a  very  early  expression  of  that  ingenious  theory 
of  a  period  of  gloom,  which  Brandes  was  to  popularize  a  decade  or  so  later. 
It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to  find  in  Brandes'  review  of  Hansen,  the 
same  anticipation  of  the  theory.  ^^ 

M  Georg  Brandes,  Fremmede  Personligheder.  Kjobenhavn.  1889.  The  original  place  of  publication 
I  have  not  been  able  to  discover.  The  publishers  (Gyldendal)  believe  that  the  essay  was  first  published 
in  PoUliken  newspaper  in  1885. 


I 


CHAPTER   II 
SHAKESPEAREAN    CRITICISM   IN    DENMARK 

1 

In  approaching  the  study  of  Shakespearean  criticism  in  Denmark, 
we  are  confronted  with  a  certain  difficulty  in  fixing  a  point  of  departure,, 
for  the  first  criticism  of  Shakespeare  in  the  Danish  monarchy  was  written 
by  Germans  in  German.  The  first  documents  are  Gerstenberg's  introduc- 
tion to  his  translation  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  The  Maid's  Tragedy 
and  his  Versuch  iiher  Shakespeares  Werke  und  Genie}  In  a  grewsome 
melodrama,  Ugolino,^  Gerstenberg  sought,  as  he  asserted,  to  copy  the  trag- 
edy of  Shakespeare  and  the  Ehzabethans.  All  this,  of  course,  belongs 
properly  to  the  literary  history  of  Germany.  That  the  German  Shakespeare 
propaganda  had  an  immediate  effect  in  Denmark  is  shown  conclusively  by 
a  classic  passage  from  Ewald's  Memoirs. 

Shortly  after  this  time  [about  1766],  something  occurred  which  completely 
altered  my  tastes.  Wieland's  translation  of  Shakespeare  and  the  prose  translation 
of  Macpherson's  Ossian  fell  into  my  hands,  and,  imperfect  as  these  are,  they  awakened 
in  me,  I  will  not  say  a  desire,  rathe'r  a  passion,  to  learn  English.  I  learned  it,  and 
what  bottomless  deeps  of  poetry  opened  before  me !' 

We  may  not  assume,  however,  that  Shakespeare  was  totally  unknown 
before  German  criticism  and  German  translations  made  his  name  familiar. 
Danish  students  and  scholars,  among  them  Holberg,  visited  England  in 
great  numbers  throughout  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries. 
That  these  men,  intelligent  and  alert,  never  heard  Shakespeare's  name, 
never  read  even  one  of  his  plays  is,  of  course  preposterous.  Yet  it  must 
be  confessed  that  they  were  strangely  reticent  of  what  they  knew.  In  1816, 
however,  Rahbek  unearthed  proof  that  one  of  Holberg's  contemporaries 
knew  of  Shakespeare  and  had  some  appreciation  of  his  importance.*  In  a 
poem  which  Holberg  certainly  had  read,  Skyldigst  Taksigelse  til  Jusiitsraad 
og  Geheimeraad  Dr.  Frederik  Rostgaard  til  Krogerup  da  han  lod  Mag.  Anders 
Bording's  Vers  i  Trykken  udgaae  (March,  1703),  Toger  Reenberg,  in  enu- 
merating the  great  poets  of  Europe,  writes : 

Med  Cowley,  Shakespeare,  Engelland, 
Med  Catz  kan  Holland  beile; 
Og  Frankrik  roser  Saint  Amant, 

•  Die  Brant.     Kopenhagen.     1765.     Gerstenberg's  Versuch  appeared  in  the  famous  liricfe  ilbcr  Mcrk- 
wurdigkeiten  der  Literatur  nos.  14-lS.    Schlesvvig.     1770. 

'Hamburg.     1768. 

'Johannes  Ewalds  Levnet  og  Meninger.     Udgivne  af  Louis  Bob6.     p.  166.     Kj6bonhavn.     1911.     Cf. 
ROnning,  Rationalismens  Tidsalder  2:77-84.     1890. 

*  Shakespeareana  i  Danmark.    Dansk  Minerva  i:\h\.  R.  1816. 


46  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

Boileau,  Marot,  Corneille: 
De  Tydskes  Priis,  Opitz  og  Rist; 
Italiens,  Guariner, 
Tass,  Ariost  ...  * 

Reenberg  had  been  in  England  in  the  course  of  his  tour  abroad  (1680- 
1682);  Hke  Holberg,  he  studied  for  some  time  at  Oxford,  and  he  had  ac- 
quired a  thorough  command  of  EngHsh.  That  he  had  read  Shakespeare 
is  not  proved;  but  these  facts,  it  seems  to  me,  render  it  exceedingly  probable. 

If  we  cannot  be  sure  how  well  Reenberg  knew  his  Shakespeare,  we 
have  no  difficulty  in  appraising  the  ignorance  of  the  first  Danish  trans- 
lator of  the  Spectator,  Peder  Kraft.  In  a  note  to  No.  57,  where  Othello 
is  mentioned,  he  writes,  "A  wretched  tragedy'',  wherein  the  hero  weeps 
for  a  stolen  handkerchief."  Even  better  is  the  translation  of  the  words 
"the  ghost  of  Banquo,"  in  No.  45,  as  "Aanden  i  Banquo!"® 

The  second  mention  of  Shakespeare's  name  occurs  in  1763 — two 
years  before  Gerstenberg's  famous  introduction — in  a  review  of  a  Ger- 
man translation  of  Home's  Elements  of  Criticism  {Grundziige  der  Critik) : 
"Home's  work  may  fairly  be  considered  as  the  best  of  its  kind.  He  com- 
bines Esthetics  with  Ethics,  good  taste  with  virtue,  and  posits  the  truth 
that  honest  and  diligent  study  of  the  fine  arts  gives  to  the  heart  a  clearer 
illumination  and  a  greater  firmness.  The  theory  is  supported  by  many 
examples  from  the  best  writers,  among  which  Shakespeare  is  often  men- 
tioned."" 

These  are  the  only  references  to  Shakespeare  before  the  essays  of  Gers- 
tenberg  and  Cramer,  and  their  Germ.an  literary  coterie  at  the  court  of 
Copenhagen.  Obviously  they  signif}^  little,  and  afford  no  basis  for  elab- 
orate theories  of  an  earlier  knowledge  of  Shakespeare.  But  in  1769,  only 
a  year  after  Ugolino,  and  before  the  new  criticism  coiild  have  had  much 
effect,  Reenberg's  poems  were  published  in  a  sumptuous  edition,  with 
notes  by  the  celebrated  Latinist,  Bolle  WiUum  Luxdorph.  The  note  to  the 
first  lines  of  the  stanza  alread}^  quoted, 

Med  Cowley,  Shakespeare,  Engelland 

is,  perhaps,  not  without  significance:^ 

William  Shakespeare,  born  in  Warwickshire  in  1564,  lived  till  1616,  and  was, 
according  to  his  epitaph,  a  Nestor,  a  Socrates,  and  a  Virgil  all  in  one.  But  that  was 
the  formula  for  epitaphs  in  those  days.  In  England  it  is  not  permitted  to  draw  his 
greatness  in  question. 

At  all  events,  every  impartial  foreigner  will  admit  that  here  is  a  problem  not  easily 
solved.    It  is  true  that  very  few  have  surpassed  him  in  adapting  his  thoughts  to  his 

'  Quoted  by  Rahbek,  loc.  cit.    Published  in  Toger  Reenbergs  Poetiske  Skrifter  1:20-4.    Kiobenhavo.   1769. 
6  Rahbek,  loc.  cit.    Kraft's  translation,  in  two  volumes,  appeared  in  1742. 
"  Nye  Tidender  om  harde  og  Curieuse  Sager  p.  378.     1763. 
8  Toger  Reenbergs  Poetiske  Skrifter  pp.  208  S.,  note. 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  47 

materials,  whether  lofty  or  mean,  or  in  putting  into  the  mouths  of  his  characters 
speeches  suitable  to  their  intelligence  and  conditions.  Profound  and  deep  when  he 
is  serious,  gay  and  witty  when  he  jests.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  many  objections 
may  be  urged  against  him. 

Then  follows  a  quotation  from  Voltaire's  Essai  sur  la  Poesie  Epique,  and 
Ltixdorph  continues: 

That  such  a  curious  mingling  of  good  and  bad  can  afford  pleasure,  and  that  the  latter 
does  not  destroy  the  former  is  due,  I  believe,  to  the  following  circumstance.  Sorrow 
is  an  enforced  state  of  mind  from  which  everyone  wishes  to  be  freed.  If,  then,  a  poet 
has  plunged  his  readers  into  gloom,  and  then  suddenly  in  some  agreeable  fashion  makes 
them  laugh,  he  may  rest  assured  of  their  sympathy.  When  Ophelia  has  drowned 
herself,  and  is  so  securely  dead  that  nothing  remains  for  the  parterre  but  to  witness 
her  funeral,  no  one  is  offended  when  the  poet  has  one  of  the  gravediggers  say,  "It  is 
damnable  that  great  folk  should  show  greater  serenity  in  hanging  or  drowning  them- 
selves than  other  Christians."  Furthermore,  Shakespeare  wrote  at  a  time  when  such 
plays  were  readily  accepted.  If  some  of  his  plays  had  been  written  today,  we  should 
hesitate  to  applaud  them;  whereas  now  we  hesitate  not  to  applaud  them,  since  they 
have  been  approved  for  two  hundred  years  and  more.  But  to  return  to  Voltaire. 
He  seems  to  have  changed  his  mind  and  not  to  be  so  sympathetic  toward  Shakespeare 
as  before.  It  has  seemed  to  him  intolerable  (and  the  reason  may  easily  be  surmised) 
that  Shakespeare  should  be  given  precedence  over  the  great  Corneille  .... 
Accordingly,  in  the  ninth  series  of  his  Pieces  Fugitives  he  has  given  a  synopsis  of 
Hamlet  which  does  not  fail  to  bring  out  every  fault  in  the  play.  And  it  is  certain  that 
if  Danes  were  to  learn  in  their  theatre  that  Denmark  was  a  Christian  country  in 
King  Harald's  day;  that  we  already  had  Rosencrantzes  and  Guildensterns  among  us; 
that  King  Frotho,  or  Fortinbras,  returned  from  Poland,  which  he  had  conquered, 
to  ascend  the  Danish  throne,  and  found  the  King  and  Queen,  Privy  Councillor  Polonius 
with  his  son  and  daughter,  all  come  to  a  violent  end — they  would  hardly  be  able  to 
conceive  of  anything  more  grotesque,  unless  it  were  Theobald's  excuse  in  this  instance. 
.  .  .  "This  was  not  through  ignorance — but  through  the  too  powerful  blaze  of  his 
Imagination,  which,  when  once  roused,  made  all  acquired  knowledge  vanish  and 
disappear  before  it!" 

A  study  of  this  interesting  comment  reveals  three  things:  first, 
that  this  is  no  echo  of  Gerstenberg's  panegyrics;  second,  that  Luxdorph, 
as  early  as  1768,  and  probably  much  earlier,  had  read  Shakespeare  in  Theo- 
bald's edition;  third,  that  the  critic  who  most  decisively  shaped  Luxdorph's 
thoughts  was  Voltaire.  Here,  at  last,  is  evidence  of  a  study  of  Shakespeare 
at  first  hand,  and  independent  of  German  influence. 

Only  three  years  later,  in  1772,  I  find  further  evidence  of  the  surpris- 
ing maturity  of  Shakespearean  scholarship  in  Denmark  at  a  time  when  it 
had  scarcely  progressed  beyond  its  infancy  in  Germany.  The  venerable 
LoBrde  Eftenetninger^  gives  the  following  well  informed  notice  of  a  Clar- 
endon Press  reprint  of  Hanmer's  edition  (1771) : 

We  have  received  this  year  (1771)  a  new  edition  of  Shakespeare  from  the  Claren- 
don Press  in  six  large  quartos  or,  rather,  folios.  The  magnificence  of  the  new  edition 
may  fairly  be  called  lavish.     Preceding  each  play  is  a  copper  engraving  by  Gravelot. 

«  December  24.  1772. 


48  MARTIN  B.  RUVD 

For  the  rest,  the  new  edition  is  precisely  like  that  edited  by  Thomas  Hanmer  of  1744, 
except  that  at  the  end  of  each  volume  are  given  the  variant  readings  of  Theobald's 
and  Capell's  editions.  Recognition  of  Capell  reveals  a  good  deal  of  impartiality, 
since  Mr.  Capell,  in  the  preface  to  his  edition,  was  rather  severe  on  Mr.  Hanmer.  Sam- 
uel Johnson's  edition  is  not  mentioned.  Apparently  it  was  not  felt  at  Oxford  that  he 
had  made  any  noteworthy  improvements  in  the  text.  The  appended  glossary  has 
been  greatly  expanded.  Some  time  ago  the  English  began  to  study  with  great  care 
the  language  of  their  older  poets.  One  asks  involuntarily,  when  will  the  Germans 
do  as  much? 

Certainly  there  is  no  dependence  on  German  criticism  here.  More 
revelatory  still  of  a  criticism  which,  whatever  else  may  be  said  of  it,  does 
not  proceed  from  Germany,  is  the  comment  on  Shakespeare,  written  about 
this  time,  by  the  first  Danish  dramatic  critic  ex  professo,  Peder  Rosen- 
stand-Goiske : 

In  tragedy  Greece,  in  my  opinion,  bore  oflf  the  palm  from  Rome,  ...  for  the 
latter  had  but  one  tragic  poet,  and  one  who  cannot  bear  comparison  with  Aeschylus, 
Sophocles,  and  Euripides.  France,  I  came  to  know,  occupies  the  highest  place  in 
this  field,  and  among  the  poets  of  that  country,  Corneille  and  Voltaire  stand  first. 
England,  I  found,  must  yield  to  France  in  tragedy.  For,  however  great  a  genius 
Shakespeare  may  be;  however  strict  the  unity  of  his  plots;  however  original  the 
conception,  plan,  and  delineation  of  his  characters;  and  however  great  the  interest 
of  his  situations  and  plots,  he  is,  none  the  less,  irregular.  His  excellent,  often  incom- 
parable, dialogue  is  cloaked  in  so  many  conceits,  vulgarities,  and  puns,  that  he  can 
never  be  compared  with  Corneille  or  Voltaire,  nor  his  plays  reckoned  as  true  master- 
pieces, except,  perhaps,  by  the  nation  for  which  he  wrote.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
other  English  writers  of  tragedy,  although  in  less  degree,  with  the  sole  exception  of 
Addison  in  his  Cato.  There  are  two  grounds  for  this  opinion.  The  English,  and 
Shakespeare  especially,  employ  too  elaborate  a  design  and  too  elaborate  a  main 
action.  It  has  a  certain  unity,  of  course,  but  it  has  too  many  episodes  in  its  train, 
for  which  reason  it  is  sometimes  difl&cult  to  distinguish  the  main  plot.  Not  even 
Othello  and  Romeo  and  Juliet  are  free  from  this  fault.  Again,  they  show  forth  what 
need  not  be  shown,  nature  in  the  rough,  without  selecting  the  beautiful,  a  matter  in 
which  the  French  exhibit  great  skill.  They  know  how  to  arouse  terror  and  pity,  as 
Aristotle  says,  without  regaling  the  spectators  with  the  butcheries  of  the  English 
stage.^" 

I  would  not,  of  course,  deny,  or  even  minimize,  the  immense  impetus 
to  Shakespearean  studies  in  Denmark  from  the  poets  and  critics  of  the 
German  movement.  I  would  simply  point  out  that  we  can  assume  a  knowl- 
edge of  Shakespeare  before  the  influence  was  felt  in  earnest,  and  that, 
from  the  very  start,  Danish  critics  went  to  France,  or  straight  to  England, 
quite  as  often  as  to  the  kindred  people  south  of  Kongeaaen.  When  in 
1777,  Boye's  Hamlet  appeared  there  was  a  body  of  well  informed  critics 
to  deal  with  it. 

From  1777  the  appreciation  of  Shakespeare  grew  steadily  until  it 
became  something  like  a  literary  fashion,  against  which,  as  I  have  pointed 

">  Kritiske  Efterretninger  om  den  kongelige  danske  Skucplads,  etc.     1778-1780.    Udgivet  med  Fortale  og 
Anmserkninger  af  C.  Molbech.    Kjobeahavn.     1839. 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN   DENMARK  49 

out,  one  of  the  reviewers  of  Boye  felt  it  necessary  to  protest.  The  domi- 
nant enthusiasm  finds  a  characteristic  expression  in  Baggesen,  more  than 
most  men  responsive  to  the  influences  about  him.  In  1789  he  made  a 
tour  through  Germany  to  Switzerland  and  France,  the  first  part  of  which 
he  has  recorded  in  the  two  voltmies  of  Ldbyrinthen.  At  the  very  threshold 
of  his  "grand  toiir,"  at  Hamburg,  he  happened  to  see  the  famous  actor, 
Schroder,  in  Lear.  Baggesen's  impressionable  soul  took  fire,  and  he  pours 
'forth  his  enthusiasm  over  the  player  and  the  play.  After  an  almost  ec- 
static rhapsody  on  Schroder's  entrance,  and  an  analysis  of  the  threefold 
source  of  his  pleasiu^e  in  the  performance,  he  continues  -y^ 

I  had  read  and  re-read,  felt,  thought  through,  treasured,  admired,  and  wor- 
shipped the  divine  Shakespeare;  I  had  acknowledged  in  his  majestic  genius  the  king 
of  poets,  the  sovereign  of  imagination,  but  never  till  this  occasion  had  I  known  his 
full  worth. 

This  was  the  masterpiece  of  dramaturgy  presented  with  supreme  histrionic 
art,  the  human  soul  to  its  innermost  fibres  revealed  for  the  delight  of  our  intellect 
and  our  appreciation  of  art's  ideal.  A  human  action  with  cause  and  effect  stood 
revealed  .  .  .  living  before  the  very  eyes  of  the  spectator,  and  his  heart  entranced 
marvelled  at  the  Providence  visible  in  its  least  detail. 

King  Lear  is  in  my  opinion  Shakespeare's,  that  is  to  say,  the  world's  greatest  tragedy. 
The  poet  seems  in  this  wondrous  beautiful  play  to  have  exhausted  all  Melpomene's 
heart-searching,  terrifying,  moving  magic.  In  no  other  play  known  to  me  is  mingled 
as  here  everything  that  awakens  curiosity,  arouses  suspense,  holds  the  attention,  and 
in  constantly  increasing  interest  hurries  the  spirit  from  one  passion  to  another.  The 
chief  character  is,  perhaps,  the  most  interesting  of  which  one  can  conceive  as  the  center 
about  which  everything  turns,  at  which  every  detail,  however  subordinate,  meets 
to  make  of  the  whole  an  heroic-tragic  drama.  He  is  an  unhappy  king,  at  war  with 
himself,  his  ungrateful  family,  and  the  raging  elements.  His  tragic  character  is 
surrounded  in  nearly  every  possible  tragic  situation  by  purely  tragic  circumstances. 
In  this  one  person  alone  are  portrayed  all  the  most  pitiable  sufferings  of  a  prince, 
a  father,  and  a  man.  Like  a  second  Laocoon  he  is  entangled  more  and  more  at  every 
movement  in  the  serpentine  coils  of  his  sufferings;  and  alas,  his  children  do  not  share, 
but  cause,  his  agony.  All  the  other  characters  and  conditions  in  the  play,  even  the 
most  episodic,  manifold  and  distinct  as  are  the  contrasts  between  them,  serve  but  to 
throw  his  into  sharper  relief.  They  are  as  indispensable  as  the  children  [in  the  Laocoon 
group].  To  set  forth  the  numberless  beauties  of  detail,  the  new  and  significant 
thoughts,  the  phrases  newer  and  more  vivid  still,  the  sparkling  wit,  and  penetrating 
observations,  would  require  a  separate  work  thrice  the  volume  of  this.  The  whole 
is,  from  beginning  to  end,  nature  in  tumult.  The  spirit  sees  it  not,  hears  it  not,  but 
lives  with  it,  a  prey  to  fear,  hatred,  pity,  rage,  hope,  and  despair. 

2 
This,  of  course,  is  not  criticism,  but  rhapsody,  more  valuable  as  a 
revelation  of  Baggesen  than  as  an  interpretation  of  Shakespeare  or  of  King 
Lear.    Of  quite  another  character  is  Professor  Levin  C.  Sander's  Lectures 

^^  Jens  Baggesens  Danske  Vctrker.     Udgivne  af  Forfatterens  Soncr  og  E.  J.  Boye.    8:170  ff.     Kjoben- 
havn.      1839. 


50  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

on  Shakespeare  and  His  Tragedy  Macbeth.^-  These  lectures  were  delivered 
at  the  Pedagogical  Seminary  in  the  winter  of  1801-1802,  and  they  repre- 
sent the  first  attempt  at  a  comprehensive  and  systematic  analysis  in  Dan- 
ish of  the  work  of  Shakespeare.  Sander's  plan  at  the  outset  was  even 
more  ambitious.  "This  first  series  of  lectures  had  for  its  purpose  to  char- 
acterize Shakespeare  the  man,  to  assemble  literary  criticism  of  the  plays, 
to  analyze  his  tragedy  Macbeth,  and,  as  a  subordinate  but  closely  related 
purpose,  after  a  comparison  with  Balder' s  Death,  Wallenstein,  and  Oedipus, 
to  study  fatalism  as  a  principle  of  tragedy.  The  first  lecture  outlines  this 
part  of  my  plan,  and  the  book  itself,  which,  nevertheless,  is  a  complete 
whole,  will  show  how  much  of  it  I  have  been  able  to  accomplish." 

Onl}^  a  fragment,  indeed,  of  this  huge  design  was  ever  carried  out. 
The  study  of  the  remaining  plays,  the  comparison  of  Macbeth  with  the  other 
great  tragedies  of  fate,  and  the  analysis  of  fate  itself  as  a  tragic  principle — 
this  larger  part  of  the  work  he  had  outlined  remained  a  pious  wish.  The 
lectures  as  we  have  them  deal  with  the  life  of  Shakespeare,  his  genius, 
the  history,  plan,  and  characters  of  Macbeth.  And  even  in  this  we  need 
not,  after  the  author's  own  frank  confession,  look  for  ami;hing  of  originality. 
It  is  a  painstaking,  immensely  circumstantial  compilation  from  Herder, 
Gerstenberg,  Rowe,  Richardson,  and  Malone.  Of  an}i;hing  approaching 
style  there  is  as  little  as  there  is  of  originality  or  critical  independence. 
The  sole  merit  of  the  work,  and,  perhaps,  considering  the  time  and  place, 
no  mean  one,  is  that  it  brings  together  without  illimiination,  but  system- 
atically and  skillfull}^  the  best  that  had  been  said  by  English  and  German 
scholars  of  Shakespeare  and  Macbeth}^ 


Sander's  failure  to  carry  out  his  program  was  in  some  measure  made 
good  by  his  friend  and  collaborator  Rahbek.  In  October,  1802,  he  pub- 
lished in  Minerva^^  a  long,  rather  rambling  article  on  Macbeth.  It  is  con- 
cerned almost  entirely  with  the  supernatural  element  and  the  soliloquies. 
Rahbek  justifies  the  witch  scenes  by  pointing  out  that  Macbeth  is  a  weak 
man  with  impulses  for  good,  who  can  be  driven  into  crime  only  by  some 
external,  even  supematiiral,  powers.  In  this  he  is  a  contrast  to  Richard  III 
who  is  intrinsically  and  inherently  wicked.  Rahbek  then  takes  up  the  so- 
liloquies. Instead  of  laying  bare  the  inner  conflicts  of  the  tragic  char- 
acters by  means  of  the  Greek  chorus,  Shakespeare  causes  them  to  reveal 

"  Forelmsninger  over  Shakespeare  og  hans  Sorgespil  Macbeth.  Heri  findes  tillige  det  af  Sander  og  Rahbek 
oversatte  Sorgespil  Macbeth,  som  ogsaa  faaes  sarskildt.    Kiobenhavn.    1804. 

"  The  twentieth  lecture  was  published  also  in  Rahbek's  Minerva  for  May,  1802.  The  first,  introductory 
lecture,  was  published  in  Tode's  Iris  og  Hebe  1:71  ff.  1802.  The  whole  work  is  reviewed  in  Lcerde  Efltr- 
retninger  nos.  14,  17,  and  18.     1804. 

"4:57  ff.   1802. 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  51 

themselves  in  their  secret  self -communings.  He  quotes  Wolsey's  solil- 
oquy to  show  the  dramatic  effectiveness  of  this  method.  In  Macbeth, 
where  the  monologues  are  used  with  remarkable  effect,  they  make  us  see 
the  character  of  the  hero  in  all  its  slightest  nuances  of  good  and  bad.  "It 
is  of  course  true  that  characters  must  not  announce  to  themselves  who  or 
what  they  are;  they  must  not  narrate  or  declaim  in  the  closet,  as  in  Greek 
or  Latin  drama;  but  the  monologue  is  here  employed  as  imitation  of  the 
most  difficult  kind;  namely  that  which  depicts  the  inner  life  of  the  soul 
in  mom.ents  of  reflection." 

In  two  extremely  verbose  articles  in  Minerva  of  the  following  year,^^ 
Rahbek  compares  the  witch  scenes  of  Macbeth  with  the  Valkyrie  scenes 
of  Ewald's  Balder^ s  Death.  Rahbek  thinks  it  certain  that  Ewald  had  Shake- 
speare's play  in  mind.  There  is,  however,  a  distinct  difference  between 
the  two  plays  in  the  use  of  the  supemattiral.  Shakespeare  uses  the  witch 
scenes  to  give  the  atmosphere  at  the  beginning ;  Ewald,  the  Valkyrie  scenes 
to  bring  about  the  tragic  catastrophe  at  the  end. 

The  second  article  is  a  refutation  of  the  criticism  that  Shakespeare 
has  made  the  witches  too  repulsive.  Rahbek  contends  that  the  horrible 
should  not  be  excluded  from  a  work  of  art  simply  because  it  is  horrible, 
but  only  because  it  is  improbable.  Are  the  witch  scenes  improbable? 
Rahbek  thinks  that  they  are  not.  For  even  if  we  do  not  believe  literally 
in  the  witches,  as  the  folk  of  Shakespeare's  day  did,  can  we  not  surrender 
ourselves  to  the  illusion?  When,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  does  such  a  fabulous 
imagining  pass  its  appropriate  limit?  To  this  he  answers,  "When  it  forces 
upon  us  not  an  idea  or  a  feeling,  but  a  physical  fact,  as  when  the  wolf  in 
Little  Red  Riding  Hood  devoiurs  the  grandmother,  dons  her  cap,  and  waits 
to  devour  the  child." 

The  most  valuable  of  Rahbek's  articles  I  have  already  freely  drawn 
upon,  his  Shakespeare  in  Denmark  (1816).^®  The  first  part  of  the  article 
amounts  to  a  discussion  of  the  still  unsettled  question.  Did  Holberg  know 
Shakespeare?  Rahbek  admits  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  did,  but, 
as  I  have  already  indicated,  shows  that  Toger  Reenberg,  one  of  Holberg's 
best  known  contemporaries,  expressly  mentions  Shakespeare  as  one  of 
the  great  poets  of  the  world.  That  Holberg  knew  Reenberg's  poem  is, 
according  to  Rahbek,  intrinsically  so  probable  as  to  amount  to  a  certainty. 
There  is  still  another  indication  that  Holberg  must  have  known  Shake- 
speare. The  translation  of  the  Spectator  by  P.  KJraft  received  its  "Impri- 
mattir"  from  Holberg's  friend  and  deputy,  Professor  Anchersen.  Kraft 
himself  later  became  personally  known  to  Holberg  when  he  was  appointed 
inspector  at  the  academy  which  Holberg  had  founded  at  Soro.  These 
circumstances  prove  merely  that  Holberg  could  hardly  have  failed  to  know 

"3:65-93,209-20.     1803. 
"  Cf.  pp.  45-46. 


52  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

something  of  Shakespeare.  They  do  not  prove  that  he  had  read  the  plays. 
Nor  is  the  argument  strengthened  by  Scheibe's  contention  in  the  preface 
to  his  German  translation  of  Peder  Paars,  that  since  Holberg  in  the  intro- 
duction to  Mindre  Poetiske  Skrifter  shows  that  he  knew  Ben  Jonson,  he 
must  also  have  known  Shakespeare.  Rahbek  rightly  remarks  that  if 
Scheibe,  who  knew  Holberg  personally,  can  adduce  no  better  evidence, 
then  the  case  is  weak  indeed.  Finally  Holberg's  Epistle  241,  in  which 
he  discusses  a  number  of  English  comedies,  does  not  give  the  slightest 
hint  of  any  acquaintance  with  Shakespeare. 

Rahbek  returned  to  the  question  in  Om  Ludvig  Holberg  som  Lystspil- 
digtcr.  His  words  here  are  so  often  misinterpreted,  that  it  seems  desir- 
able to  give  them  in  full : 

I  would  on  this  occasion  mention  the  curious  idea  which  flashed  upon  me  at  the 
name  "Trinculo" — that  many  of  the  Spanish  names  which  Don  Ranundo  rattles 
off  in  the  third  act  [of  Don  Ranundo],  Antonio,  Prospero,  Alphonso,  Gonsalvo, 
Sebastiano,  Trinculo,  as  well  as  Ariel — one  of  the  names  of  the  Prince  of  Moriand — , 
seem  to  be  taken  straight  from  Shakespeare's  Tempest,  which,  at  either  first  or  second 
hand,  possibl}'^  in  Dryden's  adaptation,  Holberg  seems  to  have  known. 

It  will  be  noted  that  Rahbek  expressly  emphasizes  the  fact  that  Hol- 
berg may  have  got  these  names  at  second  hand,  from  Dryden's  opera. 
It  is  curious,  therefore,  that  H.  H.  Nyegaard  in  his  article,  Har  Holberg 
Kjendt  Shakespeare,^"^  in  which  he  covers  almost  precisely  the  same  ground 
as  Rahbek  and  arrives,  nattfrally,  at  the.  same  conclusion,  should  so  com- 
pletel}^  have  mistmderstood  Rahbek's  allusion  to  The  Tempest.  After 
citing  Scheibe's  argument,  which  he  at  once  dismisses,  he  writes:  "By  a 
similar  process  of  loose  reasoning  Rahbek  comes  to  the  same  conclusion 
[that  Holberg  knew  Shakespeare].  He  concludes  from  the  Spanish  names 
which  Don  Ranundo  enumerates  that  Holberg  knew  The  Tempest.''^  Of 
course  Rahbek  concludes  no  such  thing.  ''Moreover,"  continues  Nye- 
gaard, "from  the  striking  similarit}''  between  the  Induction  to  The  Taming 
of  the  Shrew  and  Jeppe  on  the  Hill,  one  might  infer  such  an  acquaintance, 
if  Holberg  had  not  expressly  mentioned  his  soiu-ce." 

The  question  is  perpetually  tiurning  up.  Skavlan  treated  it  briefly 
and  concisely  in  his  Holberg  som  Komedieforfatter,^^  and  very  lately  Dr. 
Oscar  James  Campbell  has  taken  it  up  in  his  valuable  book  The  Comedies 
of  HolbergP  Skavlan  pointed  out,  indeed,  that  Shakespeare  was  so  often 
played,  adapted,  and  commented  between  1685  and  1709,  that  Holberg 
must  have  heard  about  him  and  even  read  about  him;  but  it  is  doubtftd 
if  he  read  anything  of  him,  and  certain  that  he  borrowed  nothing.     Dr. 

I'For  Romantik  og  Ilislorie  10:671-79.     1873.     Cf.  Rahbek:     Om  Ludvig  Holberg  som  Lyslspildigter 
3:432.     Kjobenhavn.     1817. 

1'  Kristiania.     1872. 

^'Harvard  Studies  in  Comparative  Literature.     3.     Cambridge.  '1914.     Cf.  J.  G.  Robertson  in  Modern 
Language  Review  11:1  S. 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  53 

Campbell  ventures  to  believe,  on  the  basis  of  three  slight  details,  that 
Jeppe  on  the  Hill  is  influenced  by  the  Induction  to  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew. 
The  argument  is  rather  frail,  and  until  ftirther  evidence  is  forthcoming, 
most  of  us  will  prefer  to  leave  the  problem  where  Skavlan  left  it  in  1872. 

But  to  return  to  Rahbek.  In  1828,  less  than  two  years  before  he 
died,  he  translated  for  A.  P.  Liunge's  review,  Hertha,  a  chapter  of  Boa- 
den's  Life  of  Ketnhle?^  He  accompanied  it  with  a  little  preface,  half  crit- 
icism, half  an  old  man's  retrospection.  He  is  talking  about  the  different 
Hamlets  which  he  has  seen,  or  of  which  he  has  read.  We  can  not,  he 
says,  lay  down  dogmatic  rules  for  the  interpretation  of  characters  on  the 
stage,  a  conviction  in  which  he  has  been  strengthened  by  reading  Boa- 
den's  classic  biographies  of  Kemble  and  Mrs.  Siddons.  "Two  most  instruc- 
tive works,  which  no  student  of  dramatic  art  should  fail,  I  will  not  say 
to  read,  but  thoroughly  to  study."  He  wishes  to  give  specimens  of  this 
work,  especially  since  it  has  called  up  memories  of  the  Hamlets  he  has 
seen  and  dreamed,  Opiz,  Klingmann,  Foersom,  and  Foersom's  successor. 
How  different  they  were  from  each  other  and  from  the  Hamlet  he  had  thought 
of  for  Rosing,  for  whom,  forty  3^ears  earlier,  he  planned  to  translate  the  play. 
And  how  different  from  all  of  these  his  own  Hamlet  would  have  been, 
if  his  highest  aspiration  through  all  the  years,  a  talent  for  the  stage,  had 
been  granted  him!     Then  follows  the  translation, — about  forty  pages. 

One  feels  the  pathos  of  Rahbek's  Vale.  He  had  planned  as  early  as 
1 788  to  translate  Hamlet;  it  was  never  done :  he  had  longed  with  boyish 
ardor  to  be  an  actor;  he  could  never  become  one.  And  now  he  looks  back 
over  his  failures,  a  little  regretful,  but  with  his  appreciation  of  others  as 
generous  as  ever,  and  his  old  enthusiasm  in  nowise  abated. 


For  the  Christmas  season  of  1802,  Oehlenschlasger  sent  out  the  little 
volume  of  Digte  which,  like  the  Lyrical  Ballads  in  England,  but  even  more 
decisively,  marks  a  turning  point  in  Danish  literature.  With  it  began 
the  Golden  Age,  to  last  almost  an  even  half  century. 

But  the  old  age  did  not  pass  without  a  protest.  The  Norwegian, 
Claus  Pavels,  later  Bishop  of  Bergen,  who  Hves  because,  like  Pepys,  he 
kept  a  diary,  wrote  a  typical  review  of  the  familiar  sort  in  Lcerde  Efierret- 
ninger.^^  After  a  curiously  uncomprehending  analysis  of  the  poems,  he 
proceeds : 

In  regard  to  the  models  which  Hr.  OchlenschlEeger  clearly  follows,  instead  of 
keeping  to  exemplaria  graeca,  like  Schiller,  Herder,  and  the  unjustly  despised  Voss: 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  Shakespeare  and  Goethe  are  great  poets,  but  the  former 
should  never  be  taken  as  a  model,  since  his  lack  of  culture  and  good  taste  is  as  obvious 

"  1:269  ff.      1828. 

21  Xos.  21  and  22.     1803. 


54  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

as  his  genius  is  high  and  incomparable, — and  this  one  had  better  not  try  to  imitate 
unless  Nature  has  endowed  one  with  the  power  to  do  so. 

Oehlenschlseger  answered  in  a  long  poem  of  no  very  great  merit,  but  of 
a  certain  interest,  since  he  ironically  apologizes  for  the  "barbarous"  Shake- 
speare : 

At  Shakespeare,  skiondt  han  havde  Hierne, 
Var  uden  Smag,  det  tror  jeg  gierne; 
Han  skrev  vist  ei  slig  Recension; 
Han  vilde  studse  ved  at  smage 
Paa  Smagen  nu  i  vore  Dage, 
Den  ubehovlede  Patron.^^ 

In  the  autumn  of  1807  appeared  Oehlenschlseger's  Nordiske  DigteP 
They  have  lost  much  of  the  romantic  exuberance  of  Sanct  Hansaften- 
Spil  and  the  first  fine  careless  rapture  of  Aladdin.  He  had  come  under  the 
influence  of  Goethe;  he  had  studied  the  tragedies  of  Schiller,  and  he  had 
drunk  in  the  riches  of  the  art  galleries  of  Dresden.  There  is  a  surer  touch 
now,  and  a  firmer  restraint.  All  this,  revealed  clearly  enough  in  the 
poems,  Thors  Reise,  an  epic;  Bladur  hin  Code,  sl  Greek  tragedy;  and  Hakon 
Jarl  hin  Rige,  a  tragedy  profoundly  influenced  by  Schiller,  is  plainly 
avowed  in  the  preface,   and  implicit  in  the   comment   on   Shakespeare: 

Since  Aristotle's  day,  three  unities  have  been  held  essential  in  drama — the  unity 
of  time,  the  unity  of  place,  and  the  unity  of  action.  Far  from  objecting  to  these 
rules  in  themselves,  I  would  merely  interpret  them  in  a  somewhat  broader  sense 
than  is  usual.  If  by  unity  of  time  is  meant  the  age;  by  unity  of  place,  the  region; 
and  by  unity  of  action,  the  completely  rounded  out  event  [Bedrift],  then  these 
canons  will  hold  for  anything  which  can  by  any  possibility  be  called  a  play.  In  this 
broader  sense,  they  become  not  merely  rules  for  the  art  of  any  given  period,  still  less 
the  formulations  of  its  prejudices,  but  the  eternal  and  essential  conditions  of  the 
two  fundamental  qualities  of  every  work  of  art,  harmony  and  independence. 

Having  then  briefly  discussed  Greek  and  French  dramatic  poetry, 
he  comes  to  Shakespeare: 

As  a  model  for  the  new  dramatic  poetry  stands  the  immortal  William  Shakespeare 
like  a  Colossus  in  the  background.  Through  his  lofty  genius  he  was  able  to  raise  the 
Gothic  world  to  the  plane  of  Art,  as  the  Greeks  had  raised  the  ancient  world.  His  power 
did  not  lie  in  a  gift  of  Nature  which  chooses  the  wrong  course  ten  times  for  every  time 
that  it  chooses  aright.  In  every  genius,  there  is  as  great  desire  to  gain  culture  and 
knowledge  as  there  is  aptness  and  dexterity  in  acquiring  them.  The  tree,  excellent 
by  nature,  stands  suddenly  loaded  with  flowers,  and  the  flowers  grow  rapidly  into 
fruit.  That  was  Shakespeare's  history,  and  whoever  cannot  discover  in  him  knowledge 
and  ripe  judgment,  "sehn  wir,  worans  ihm  gebricht,  und  heissen  ihn  die  Zeitung 
lesen,"  as  the  editor  of  Ewald  once  remarked. 

But  just  as  certain  as  genius  is  a  sudden  gift  from  heaven,  independent  of  time 
and  circumstances,  unpredictable  and  unanalyzable,  there  is,  nevertheless,  in  the 

"  The  poem,  twenty  stanzas  in  all,  was  published  in  Dagen  newspaper.     It  is  quoted  here  from  the 
reprint  in  Liebenberg,  Bidrag  etc.  pp.  5-9. 
M  Kiebenhavn.    1807. 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  55 

esthetic  as  in  the  moral  world,  a  certain  perfectibility,  developed  by  industry,  learn- 
ing, and  example,  which  is  the  highest  glory  of  mankind. —  .    .    . 

One  finds  here  the  unmistakable  note  of  an  apologia  pro  vita  sua, 
but  Oehlenschlseger  applies  it  to  Shakespeare : 

Heaven  alone  knows  if  there  will  be  again  such  another  genius  as  Shakespeare: 
but  it  is  certain  that  we  moderns  with  all  our  love  and  respect  for  this  our  ancestor 
can  find  faults  and  imperfections  in  him.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  many  of  Shake- 
speare's plays  lose  themselves  in  spaciousness  and  aimlessness;  and  although  the 
great  dramatist  never  permits  this  expansiveness  to  evaporate,  in  turn,  into  air, 
although  he  never  ceases  to  be  dramatic,  we  do  find  the  rule  we  have  posited  as  essen- 
tial, unity  of  action,  violated  more  than  once.  This  is  a  fault  which  must  be  forgiven 
Shakespeare,  in  whom  one  must  rather  wonder  at  the  marvels  which  he,  the  pioneer 
.  ,  .  was  able  to  accomplish;  but  in  us,  his  successors,  who  stand  on  his  broad 
shoulders,  it  cannot  be  forgiven. 

Oehlenschlseger  then  points  out  that  in  respect  to  the  unities  of  time 
and  place,  we  are  bound  by  the  mechanical  conditions  of  the  modem  stage 
as  Shakespeare  was  not.  Hence  the  frequent  shifts  of  the  Elizabethan 
drama  are  neither  possible  nor  desirable. 

As  he  continued  to  read  Shakespeare,  and  no  doubt,  in  the  course 
of  his  work  on  the  translation  of  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream,  Oehlen- 
schlseger discovered  that  what  seemed  inharmonious  and  inorganic  was 
in  very  truth  pervaded  by  an  inner  unity  which  often  escaped  critics 
trained  in  classic  and  neo-classic  poetics.  His  long,  illuminating  preface 
to  that  translation  is,  like  that  to  Nordiske  Digte,  a  confession  of  spiritual 
growth.2*    But  he  has  travelled  farther  since  then,  and  he  has  seen  more: 

Ought  it  really  be  necessary  to  defend  one  of  Shakespeare's  finest  comedies 
against  .  .  .  wrong-headed  criticism?  Yet  this  play  judged  by  French  rules  would 
be  condemned  as  barbarous;  it  possesses,  indeed,  certain  beauties  of  detail,  but  is 
without  harmony  or  coherence.   .   .   .   Who  is  the  hero?     What  is  the  main  action? 

He  points  out  some  of  the  grotesque  juxtapositions,  the  complete 
lack  of  anything  like  historical  verisimilitude,  the  riotous  confusion  of  men, 
events,  and  chronology.  But  he  reminds  the  reader  that  it  is  always  to 
be  borne  in  mind  that  the  play  is  a  dream  "in  which  one  age  and  one  pic- 
ture alternate  with  and  fuse  with  another.  Unless  we  deny  that  a  poet 
can  dream  cunningly  and  beautifully,  wc  will  not  deny  ourselves  the  joy 
of  sharing  the  vision." 

This  is  not  to  say  that  the  play  has  not  unity  and  coherence.  These 
are  immutable  principles,  and  no  work  of  art  can  be  without  them.  But 
there  is  an  outward  unity  of  form,  and  there  is  a  more  important  inward 
unity  of  tone  and  spirit.     This  is  the  unity  of  Shakespeare's  comedy. 

The  poet  purposes  ...  to  show  the  erotic-heroic,  the  comic-burlesque,  and 
the  supernatural  poetic  worlds  in  sharp  contrast,  that  thereby  he  may  reveal  the  dis- 
tinctive character  of  each.     These  three  worlds  (the  two  opposite  poles  of  mankind, 

"  Cf.  p.  54. 


56  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

high  and  low,  between  which  an  invisible  Genius  hovers  and  works)  are  beautifully 
bodied  forth  in  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream.  In  no  more  effective  way  could  high 
rank  and  love,  power  and  grace,  be  set  off  against  clownishness,  stupidity  and  in- 
competence. When  in  certain  scenes,  eloquence,  and  enthusiasm,  and  grace  have  found 
utterance  through  characters  of  high  station;  when  this  enthusiasm  and  grace  have 
risen,  in  the  fairy  scenes  to  the  loveliest  lyric  poetry,  comes  the  comic  contrast  of  the 
tradesmen,  incarnating  the  very  opposite  of  what  we  have  just  looked  upon,  and  so 
heightening  the  impression.  .  .  .  Could  the  snow  white  chin  and  rosy  lips  of  a 
Venetian  girl  be  more  strikingly  set  off  by  her  black  mask,  than  is  Titania's  as  she 
strokes  Bottom's  ass'  head  with  her  alabaster  hands?  Here,  as,  indeed  elsewhere, 
Shakespeare  has  employed  with  high  genius  the  art  of  gaining  effects,  of  illumi- 
nating the  picture  and  emphasizing  the  impression,  by  contrasts.  Not  gods  only, 
heroes,  and  honest  citizens  intermingle  here,  but  Ages.  On  the  wings  of  fancy  we 
float  lightly  from  classic  Greece  to  the  fairy-world  of  Asia,  and  thence  to  the  trade- 
guilds  of  London.  And  from  all  this  we  gain  a  distinct  feeling  and  clear  picture  of 
classes,  ages,  virtues,  faults.  .    .    . 

Finally,  Oehlenschlceger  points  out  that  the  play  is  not  so  devoid  of 
formal  coherence  as  the  superficial  reader  thinks. 

An  unimportant  quarrel  among  the  fairies  brings  about  the  confusion  of  the 
lovers.  It  is  their  wedding  which  the  tradesmen  would  honor  with  their  interlude. 
There  is,  accordingly,  a  kind  of  external  unity  in  the  plot,  if  it  be  not  considered  too 
strictly.  Indeed,  as  a  curiosity  in  Shakespeare,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  we  have 
here  unity  of  time  and  very  nearly  unity  of  place. 

The  play  constantly  parodies  itself  within  itself,  and  the  parody  does  not  weaken 
it,  but  shows  the  beautiful  yet  more  beautiful.  The  sublime  is  not  ridiculed;  the 
ridiculous  becomes  sublime  in  this  poetic-philosophic  contrast.  The  interlude  in  the 
fifth  act  is  capital  comedy.  I  do  not  believe  that  any  poetic  reader  will  scorn  it,  like 
Hippolyta,  but  rather  say,  with  Theseus:  "The  best  in  this  kind  are  but  shadows, 
and  the  worst  are  no  worse,  if  imagination  amend  them."  To  which  one  should 
add  .    .    .    ,  not  our  imagination,  but  the  poet's. 

Possibly  the  play  has  become  in  Oehlenschlasger's  analysis  too  much 
a  philosophical  document  and  too  little  a  dream;  yet  it  is  certainly  some- 
thing more  than  an  exquisite  tissue  of  gossamer  and  moonbeams. 

Oehlenschlseger's  remaining  contributions  to  Shakespearean  criticism 
are  rather  slight  and  unimportant.  The}^  consist  of  three  articles  in  Pro- 
metheus, a  literary  and  critical  magazine  which  he  edited  in  1833.^'^ 

The  first  is  a  long  article  on  the  witch  scenes  and  the  porter  scene  in  Mac- 
hethP  The  witches  of  Shakespeare,  Oehlenschlseger  writes,  are  ugly  and  dis- 
gusting creatiu-es,  fitting  embodiments  of  the  Christian  idea  of  sin  and  retri- 
bution. Schiller,  under  the  influence  of  Greek  tragedy,  has  transformed  them 
into  beautiful  and  dignified  goddesses  of  fate.  Shakespeare's  is  a  moral  and 
Christian  conception;  Schiller's  ethical  and  Hellenic.  He  then  quotes  in  full 
Schiller's  porter  scene,  ^nd  asks,  "But  is  not  the  ironical  humor  of  the  orig- 
inal much  more  dramatic  and  poetic?    Up  to  the  moment  when  the  crime 


^Prometheus.     Maanedsskrijl  for  Poesie,  Aesthetik  og  Krltik.     U'dgivet  af  Oehlenschlaeger. 
^Ibid.    3:42-84. 


J 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN   DENMARK  57 

is  discovered,  everything  in  the  castle  must  follow  its  normal  course. 
And  has  not  the  porter  been  drinking  and  carousing  with  the  rest?  This 
certainly  is  more  rational  than  the  idealized  scene  in  Schiller.  It  is  a  jest, 
but  a  grewsome  jest  with  hell."  Shakespeare  never  made  a  mistake  in  min- 
gling tragedy  and  low  comedy.  Could  anything  be  truer  dramatically  than 
the  grave-diggers  in  Hamlet,  the  fool  in  Lear,  or  the  nurse  in  Romeo  and 
Juliet?  In  a  closing  paragraph,  Oehlenschlasger  remarks  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  read  the  witch  scenes  of  Macbeth  without  thinking  of  the  Valkyrie 
scenes  of  Ewald's  Balder' s  Death.  Ewald  is  certainly  influenced  by  Shake- 
speare, but  in  borrowing  he  is  only  claiming  back  what  Shakespeare  took 
from  Scandinavian  mythology,  for  the  conception  of  the  function  and  being 
of  the  witches  is  thoroughly  Norse.  Ewald  makes  his  Valkyries  purely 
tragic,  with  no  suggestion  of  the  grotesque.  Nor  does  he  mix  Greek  and 
Germanic  mythology  as  Shakespeare  does  in  introducing  Hecate  in  a 
company  of  Scotch  witches — a  confusion  by  no  means  happy. 

In  the  second^''  article  Oehlenschlasger  compares  Shakespeare's  Joan 
of  Arc  with  Schiller's.  He  is  unable  to  agree  with  Schlegel  that  Shake- 
speare's character  is  more  convincing  and  more  true  to  history  than  Schil- 
ler's. Surely,  if  Shakespeare  had  had  any  conception  of  the  real  Jeanne 
d'Arc,  he  would  not  have  made  her  out  a  liar  and  a  cheat.  Oehlenschlaeger 
thinks  that  the  mistake  was  due  not,  as  Schlegel  holds,  to  patriotic  prej- 
udice, but  to  ignorance.  Shakespeare  was  misled  by  wretched  (slette) 
English  chronicles.  It  thus  remained  for  a  great  German,  with  aU  the  capa- 
cities of  the  German  tongue  for  heroic  themes  at  his  command,  to  rescue 
the  Maid  of  Orleans. 

The  third  article^^  is  simply  a  reprint  of  the  Amleth  saga  from  Saxo, 
in  Vedel's  noble  translation.  "Much  has  been  written  about  Shakespeare's 
Hamlet,'"  says  Oehlenschlaeger,  "but  I  desire  to  add  a  word,  since  it  is  taken 
from  the  history  of  oiu"  fatherland."  The  story,  however,  is  left  to  tell 
its  own  tale  without  comment. 


Foersom  was  not  in  any  real  sense  a  literary  critic;  his  genius  was 
creative  and  poetic  rather  than  analytical.  But  on  occasion  he  could  speak 
up  manfully  in  defense  of  Shakespeare,  as  in  his  stinging  reply  to  Thaarup, 
and  his  fine  enthusiasm  and  sound  knowledge  made  him  a  glorious  mission- 
ary. In  1811,  when  he  lived  in  high  hopes  of  soon  producing  Hamlet  at 
the  Royal  Theatre,  he  wrote  an  article,  obviously  a  kind  of  glorified  press 
notice,  on  "Hamlet"  on  the  London  StageP    He  gives  an  accurate  account 

^■>  Ibid.    4:34-63. 
2»Z6icf.    4:350-59. 

^^  LcBsning  for  Dyrkere  og  Yndere  af  Skuespilkunslen.     1811-1812.     Udgivcn  af   Peter  Thun  Foersom. 
Kiabenhavn. 


58  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

of  the  cuttings  and  alterations  made  for  stage  purposes,  discriminating 
criticism,  of  course  at  second  hand,  of  the  great  actors  who  had  played 
in  the  title-r61e,  and  other  information  which  might  prepare  the  Danish 
public  for  the  great  venture  that  so  completely  absorbed  his  own  inter- 
ests and  energies.  He  sharply  criticises  the  English  managers  for  their 
cutting  of  the  grave-diggers  scene  and  for  the  uniformly  wretched  ver- 
sions in  which  they  permit  Hamlet  to  be  played.  The  closing  paragraph, 
with  its  strictures  on  the  English  and  American  star  system,  has  a  certain 
point  even  today: 

Shakespeare's  best  days  are  doubtless  over  in  England.  He  cannot  be  studied, 
not  to  say  sacred,  in  a  country  which  calls  Kotzebue  Germany's  Shakespeare!  Like 
several  of  his  plays,  Hamlet  is  not  performed  as  it  came  from  his  hand,  but  in  cuttings, 
adaptations,  and  so-called  "improvements." 

Such  stage  adaptations  may  possibly  be  necessary,  but  it  is  a  fact,  never- 
theless, that  Hamlet  is  rareh^  well  played  in  London.  Only  the  important 
roles  are  placed  in  good  hands. 

Whether  or  not  this  has  been  true  for  a  long  time,  I  do  not  know,  but  so  far  as 
Hamlet  is  concerned,  it  seems  to  me  strange  that  both  Lichtenberg  and  Davis  mention 
only  the  important  roles,  Hamlet,  Polonius,  Ophelia,  the  Ghost,  and  entirely  pass  over 
r61es  equally  important,  at  least  in  their  place — the  king,  Fortinbras,  Horatio,  Rosen- 
crantz,  Guildenstern,  the  queen,  the  grave-diggers,  and  others,  a  proof,  it  seems  to 
me,  that  there  was  nothing  to  say  about  the  actors  who  played  these  parts,  and 
therefore  it  was  best  to  remain  silent. 

The  dramatic  tradition  which  Foersom  knew  demanded  that  Osric 
be  as  well  done  as  Hamlet,  that  the  part  of  the  queen  be  entrusted  to  as 
competent  hands  as  that  of  Ophelia.  Fortunately  that  is  still  the  tradition 
on  the  Danish  stage. 


The  example  of  Germany,  the  propaganda  of  Foersom,  the  criticism 
of  Rahbek,  Oehlenschlaeger,  Abrahamson,  Meisling,  and  many  others, 
had  not  quite  destroyed  the  old  conception  of  Shakespeare  as  an  inspired 
barbarian,  even  in  1816.  Pavels  and  Thaarup  had  probably  not  altered 
their  opinions.  But  it  is  a  bit  odd,  in  the  same  year  as  Oehlenschlgeger's 
preface  to  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream  to  come  upon  the  following  anti- 
quated criticism  in  Nyeste  Skilderier  af  KjohenhavnP  The  writer,  who 
is  anonymous,  tells  us  that  his  purpose  is  to  strike  a  balance  between  the 
extravagant  praise  of  those  to  whom  Shakespeare  is  in  all  respects  admir- 
able, and  the  iconoclasm  of  those,  who,  like  Voltaire,  take  a  delight  in 
finding  fault.  The  writer  is  ready  to  make  allowances  for  the  fact  that 
Shakespeare  wrote  for  a  stage   different  from  our  own;  he  is  willing  to 

"  25:1479  ff. 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  59 

admit  that  much  of  the  criticism  of  his  anachronisms,  his  lack  of  learn- 
ing, and  his  blunders  in  history,  is  beside  the  point,  but  he  still  insists 
that  Shakespeare  has  serious  and  radical  weaknesses.  The  real  point 
of  the  essay,  which,  despite  its  lack  of  insight,  is  excellently  written,  is 
summed  up  in  a  single  paragraph. 

Great,  indeed,  [Shakespeare]  must  be  called,  since  the  range  and  force  of  his 
native  genius,  both  in  tragedy  and  in  comedy,  are  unexcelled.  But  it  is  a  wild  and 
stormy  genius,  which  offends  good  taste  and  is  unsustained  by  knowledge  of  art.  He 
has  long  been  worshipped  by  the  English  people;  much  has  been  said  and  written 
about  him;  oceans  of  criticism  have  been  expended  in  explaining  his  words  and  his 
"conceits,"  and  yet  there  remain  even  now  serious  doubts  whether  his  faults  or  his 
merits  are  the  greater.  Admirable  scenes  and  passages  without  number  are  to  be 
found  in  his  plays — passages  which  surpass  anything  to  be  found  in  any  other  dram- 
atist; but  hardly  one  of  the  plays  can  be  read  with  unbroken  pleasure  from  beginning 
to  end.  Besides  excessive  irregularity  of  plot,  there  are  often  strained  ideas  and  coarse 
expressions,  a  certain  turgid  bombast,  and  bits  of  word-play  which  he  takes  a  strange 
delight  in  following  up.  And  these  things  interrupt  us  precisely  when  we  least  wish  it. 
For  these,  faults,  however,  Shakespeare  atones  by  two  of  the  greatest  excellences  a 
dramatic  poet  can  possess — his  power  of  lively  and  varied  characterization,  and  his 
strong  and  vivid  delineation  of  human  passion.    These  are  cardinal  virtues. 

Of  course  this  sort  of  criticism  was  already  obsolete.  Shakespeare  had 
become,  in  Foersom's  translations,  a  possession  of  the  Danish  people, 
not  to  be  disturbed  by  echoes  of  Voltaire.  Popular  periodicals  contain 
from  now  on  numerous  little  articles  on  Shakespeare — his  life,  his  family 
history,  his  birthplace,  and  retellings,  in  more  or  less  lively  fashion,  of 
the  familiar  apocryphal  anecdotes  which  so  long  embellished  his  biography. 
They  are  absolutely  without  value;  but  the  fact  that  they  were  published 
in  journals  addressed  to  the  lower  stratum  of  readers  makes  it  clear  that 
by  the  year  of  Foersom's  death,  Shakespeare  was  as  firmly  intrenched 
in  Denmark  as  he  had  long  been  in  Germany.  The  old  tradition,  however, 
died  hard.  Thus,  more  than  a  decade  later,  in  1828,  we  find  no  less  a  person 
than  Professor  Odin  WolfE  writing  in  Journal  for  Psychologi,  Historie, 
Literatur  og  Kttnst,^^  "Ben  Jonson  says  that  Shakespeare  did  not  know 
how  to  blot.  In  other  words,  a  charge  that  he  lacked  a  critical  sense. 
A  serious  defect;  due  in  part,  no  doubt,  to  his  not  having  studied  the  an- 
cients." 

More  pretentious  than  these  fugitive  pieces  and  of  distinct  merit, 
is  an  article  on  Hamlet  by  the  historian  Ludwig  Helwig  in  For  Literatur 
og  Kritik.^^  The  conception  of  Hamlet  as  a  dual  nature  destroyed  by  the 
conflict  between  duty  and  pale  reflection,  is  not  new,  but  Holweg  pre- 
sents it  with  skill  and  eloquence  and  with  no  little  insight  into  the  most 
elusive  of  tragic  characters. 

"2:283.     1828. 

w  Udgivet  af  Fyns  Stifts  Literare  Forcning.     Redigeret  af  L.  Helweg.     pp.  317-54.     1817. 


60  }rARTIN  B.  RUUD 


Literary  criticism  is  of  the  greatest  service  to  us  when  it  seeks  to  pene- 
trate in  the  glow  of  imagination  to  the  life-giving  principle  of  a  work  of  art, 
to  interpret  this  truthfully,  and  to  show  forth  its  presence  at  every  point 
and  in  each  detail.  A  play,  for  instance,  reveals  from  the  angle  of  the  dram- 
atist's choosing  a  segment  of  life.  What  is  the  angle?  What  is  the 
conception  at  the  heart  of  it  all?  How  has  the  artist  builded  that  the 
dominant  conception  may  be  communicated  unimpaired  to  him  who  reads  ? 
These  questions  the  critic  will  feel,  and  the  value  of  his  criticism  depends 
upon  the  truth  and  illumination  of  his  answers. 

Carsten  Hauch  has  become  a  classic  in  Danish  literature,  and  he  has 
gone  the  way  of  every  classic,  much  talked  about  and  seldom  read.  I 
suppose  that  this  is  true  even  more  of  his  critical  writings  than  of  his  plays 
and  historical  romances.  But  that  criticism  is  as  fresh  today  as  the  day  it 
was  written,  for  it  is  the  record  of  the  efforts  of  a  sympathetic  imagination 
to  see,  to  understand,  and  to  interpret  honestly.  His  critical  method, 
abstracted  from  the  essays,  seems,  like  Arnold's,  a  little  cold.  It  is  sound 
and  right,  however,  beyond  all  cavil.  To  Hauch  the  first  duty  of  the  critic 
was  to  discover  the  basic  idea  (Grundide),  and  then  to  show  how  consis- 
tently the  basic  idea  was  felt  from  first  to  last  in  the  work  before  him.  This 
is  his  method  in  his  essays  on  the  plays  of  Shakespeare;  and  even  if  it  be 
true  that  his  personal  idiosyncrasies  and  his  passion  for  symmetry  some- 
times lead  to  violent  interpretations,  the  reader  for  the  moment  is  carried 
away  and  ready  to  yield.  Consistent  methodology,  a  firm  technique, 
sympathy,  and  persuasive  style  make  his  criticism  of  Shakespeare  alto- 
gether the  best  in  Danish  before  Brandes.  To  Hauch,  Shakespeare  vras 
a  great  conscious  artist  who  knew  precisely  what  he  wanted  to  do  and 
precisely  how  to  do  it.  No  one  had  discovered  it  in  Denmark,  and  no  one 
anywhere  had  demonstrated  it  so  symmetrically,  so  consistently,  so  mi- 
nutely in  single  plays. 

The  first  of  these  essays,  on  Macbeth,  appeared  in  Nordisk  Univer- 
sitets-Tidsskrift,  in  1854.^^  In  the  opening  paragraph  Hauch  remarks 
that  just  as  each  of  Shakespeare's  plays  uncovers  new  deeps  in  the  hiiman 
soul,  so  each  one  is  distinguishec?  by  a  new  diction  and  stjde.  In  Macbeth, 
the  style,  in  the  speeches  of  the  two  chief  characters,  has  a  twofold  quality. 
"When  Macbeth  and  Lady  Macbeth  are  in  the  company  of  others,  their 
speech  is,  as  a  rule,  disguised,  flattering,  affected,  so  that  they  seem  to  be 
putting  into  practice  the  maxim  of  the  French  statesman  that  language 
is  given  not  to  reveal  but  to  conceal  thought.  .  .  .  When  Macbeth  is 
alone,  however,  or  with  his  w^ife,  or  when  he  is  overwhelmed  by  some 

2^  Isogle  Kritiske  Undersogelser  med  Hensyn  til  Tragedien  Macbeth.  Af  Etatsraad  Professor  Hauch. 
Nordisk  Universiielslidsskrifl  1:21  ff.  Kjobenhavn-Lund-Christiania-Upsala.  1854-55.  Reprinted  in 
Aesthetiske  Afhandlhiger  og  Recensioner  pp.  163  £f.     Kjobenhavn.     1861. 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  61 

secret  power  within  him,  the  style  changes  completely :  at  times  it  is  like 
the  sighs  and  lamentations  of  a  lost  soul,  or  like  defiance  and  gnashing  of 
teeth  in  the  depths;  at  times,  of  a  truth,  it  is  as  though  a  volcano  opened, 
and  flame  from  the  nether  world  burst  up  into  light  to  bring  fear  and  despair 
to  the  souls  of  men."  Now  this  duality  in  the  character  of  the  speeches 
corresponds  to  the  significance  of  the  play :  Macbeth  is  a  tragedy  of  demon- 
iacal powers  in  human  life.  They  remain  hidden  in  guarded  moments, 
but  at  times  in  secret,  or  when  they  are  evoked  by  outside  forces,  or  when, 
in  course  of  time,  they  gain  the  mastery,  they  burst  forth  to  wreak  ruin 
on  themselves  and  the  world.  Macbeth  himself  bodies  forth  a  demon, 
one  who,  like  Lucifer,  has  fallen  from  heaven,  but  who  still  bears  about 
him  gleams  of  his  original  lustre.  "This  drama,  so  far  as  it  is  at  all 
possible  within  the  limitations  of  human  work,  reproduces  for  us  the  Pri- 
meval Tragedy  when  the  demons  rebelled  against  the  Most  High.  Mac- 
beth resembles  the  Prince  of  Demons  at  least  in  this,  that  although  at 
the  outset  he  shines  with  a  light  brighter  than  the  light  of  thousands,  he 
is  not  contented,  but  is  seized  by  that  spirit  of  contradictions  which  shows 
him  his  greatness  in  his  ruin.  When  he  stretches  out  impious  hands  after 
the  highest  things,  and  turns  against  the  gracious  ruler  who  has  showered 
him  with  benefits,  he  is  plunged  down  into  a  bottomless  abyss.  And  still 
there  shines  a  light  out  of  the  abyss,  and  sighs  rise  out  of  it,  as  though  he 
were  seeking  once  more  the  world  from  which  his  crimes  have  cast  him  out." 
This  thesis  of  Macbeth  as  the  microcosm  of  sin  and  all  our  woe,  Hauch  then 
tries  to  establish  by  a  minute  examination  of  the  play.  For  each  detail 
subserves  the  great  design.  "As  the  mature  plant  is  hidden  in  the  seed, 
so  that  nothing  can  come  forth  which  is  not  latent  in  the  seed,  so,  too, 
with  a  work  of  art;  for  this  also  is  an  organism,  in  which  the  end  must  be 
potentially  present  from  the  beginning." 

In  AJhandlinger  eg  Aesthetiske  Betragtninger  is  an  essay  on  King  Lear,^'^ 
written  in  1851,  but  apparently  not  published  till  1885.  Hauch  conceives 
of  Lear  as  the  tragedy  of  unbridled  passions,  and  this  conception,  as  in 
the  case  of  Macbeth,  he  supports  by  a  microscopic  examination.  In  Lear, 
in  Goneril  and  Regan,  in  Gloster  and  Edmund,  these  passions  are  nursed 
by  flattery  and  self-indulgence,  and  at  the  critical  moment  they  sweep 
away  all  bounds  and  hurry  them  to  their  destruction.  In  the  old  king, 
however,  and  in  Gloster,  are  elements  of  nobility,  which,  when  sin  begotten 
of  passion  has  done  its  worst,  assert  themselves,  and  make  possible  final 
peace  and  reconciliation  and  the  entrance  to  a  new  life.  The  analysis  of 
Cordelia's  character  and  Edgar's  is  admirable,  and  familiar  as  is  the  dem- 
onstration of  the  interaction  of  the  two  plots,  Hauch  carries  it  out  to  such 
minute  detail  that  the  reader  is  made  to  see,  as  perhaps  he  has  never  seen 

"Kritiske  Bemaerkninger  med  Hensyn  til  Kong  Lear.     In  Afhandlingcr  og  Aesthetiske  lietraglninget. 
Af  C.  Hauch.    Kjobenhavn.     1855. 


62  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

before,  how  cunning  and  conscious  a  craftsman  Shakespeare  was.  There 
is  a  fine  differentiation,  too,  between  the  real  madness  of  Lear  and  the 
feigned  madness  of  Edgar. 

It  seems,  at  least  at  the  outset,  that  Edgar's  madness,  although  assumed,  has  a 
greater  verisimilitude  than  Lear's;  for  at  first  the  latter  does  not  talk  so  wildly,  and 
there  is  greater  consecutiveness  in  his  ideas.  To  this  it  may  be  replied  that  the  king 
is  still  [in  the  scene  on  the  heath]  at  a  turning  point,  and  not  yet  completely  under 
the  spell  of  madness.  Edgar,  on  the  other  hand,  has  learned  his  r61e  by  heart;  he 
has  gone  from  town  to  town  rattling  off  his  jargon,  and  he  carries  off  his  part  with 
perfect  naturalness.  The  Icing,  moreover,  has  a  fixed  obsession;  Edgar  merely  pre- 
tends that  he  is  possessed  by  certain  devils  whose  names  he  has  learned  .... 
Edgar,  in  a  conscious  and  reasoned  way,  has  gained  a  virtuosity  in  his  art.  .    .    . 

In  Lear's  madness  there  is  no  art;  it  is  tragically  real. 

A  third  essay,  Shakespeare^ s  Skjarsommernatsdrom,  in  Aesthetiske 
Afhandlinger  og  Recensioner,^^  interprets  this  play  more  simply  than  Oeh- 
lenschlaeger's  preface  of  1816.  Hauch  considers  A  Midsummer  Ntghfs 
Dream  a  flawless  example  of  romantic  drama.  Not  only  that;  it  is  one 
of  the  great  fountainheads  of  modern  romanticism.  "The  essential  thing 
in  any  romantic  work  is,  I  doubt  not,  the  idea  of  a  greater  and  more  glo- 
rious world  behind  the  present,  which,  whether  made  visible  in  a  poetic 
embodiment,  or  merely  felt  in  dim  moods,  or  perceived  through  mar\^elous 
coincidences.  .  .  throws  its  light  on  the  life  of  man,  and  gives  to  it  its 
significance."  If  we  examine  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream  from  this  point 
of  view,  we  shall  find  that  it  is  the  very  essence  of  romance.  But  what 
problem  of  life  does  it  illuminate?  What,  indeed,  but  youthful  and  imre- 
flective  love?  The  mazes  of  the  love  story  weave  themselves  against  a 
background  of  well  ordered  society  (Theseus  and  his  Athens)  on  the  one 
hand,  and,  on  the  other,  the  twilight  and  starlight  and  dawn  of  fairyland. 

Hauch  shows  how  dexterously  the  three  worlds  of  the  Athenians,  the 
fairies,  and  the  tradesmen  are  interwoven.  Theseus  represents  the  estab- 
lished order  with  which  the  unpremeditated  love  of  the  young  men  and 
maidens  collides;  the  fairy  world  not  onl}'-  incarnates  the  lyric  poetrj'-  of 
love,  but  directs  the  forttines  of  the  lovers;  and  the  tradesmen,  besides 
being  drawn  skilfully  into  the  main  plot,  serve  admirably  the  piu-pose  of 
contrast.  And  again  Hauch  insists  that  this  seemingly  chaotic  comedy 
is  an  organic  work  of  art,  not  one  detail  of  which  can  be  taken  awa3^ 

Clever  and  interesting  is  a  review  which  Hauch  imagines  a  critic  might 
write  if  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream  were  to  be  performed  today  as  a 
new  work.  Such  a  reviewer,  of  course,  would  roundly  denounce  the  ana- 
chronisms, the  disregard  of  history  and  objective  truth.  To  all  of  which 
Hauch  answers  that  if  a  work  of  art,  once  you  grant  the  premises,  is  poet- 
ically true  and  is  consistent  throughout,  literality  is  of  no  consequence. 

«5  Pp.  232-301.     Kjobenhavn.     1861.     OriginaMy  published  in  Nordisk   Universitetstidsskrift.     2:36  ff. 
1856. 


SHAKESPEAREAN  CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  63 

And  in  his  essay  his  aim  has  been  to  show  the  poetic  truth  and  the  inter- 
nal consistency. 

A  third  volume  of  Hauch's  essays,  AJhandlinger  og  Aesthetiske  Be- 
tragtninger.  Ny  RcBkke,^^  contains  two  further  essays  on  Shakespeare,  Ro- 
meo og  Julie  and  Nogle  Bemcsrkninger  om  en  Charaktergruppe  i  Shakespeares 
"Hamlet."  In  the  study  of  Romeo  and  Juliet,  Hauch  first  briefly  accounts 
for  the  sources,  and  then  goes  on  to  demonstrate  the  remarkable  par- 
allelism between  the  main  plot  and  the  old  story  of  Pyramus  and  Thisbe, 
a  parallelism  which  he  had  already  pointed  ou.t  in  his  essay  on  A  Midsummer 
Niglifs  Dream.  The  resemblance  was  mentioned,  but  not  developed,  by 
Carl  Simrock,  in  1831.^''  It  is  not  clear,  however,  that  Hauch  knew  Char- 
acters of  Shakespeare's  Plays.  If  he  had,  he  would  certainly  have  credited 
Simrock  with  the  suggestion.  The  tone,  moreover,  of  Hauch's  demon- 
stration, leaves  little  doubt  that  he  believed  the  observation  to  be  original. 

We  see  in  Pyramus  and  Tliisbe  two  lovers  who  are  kept  apart  by  the  enmity  of 
their  parents.  At  last  they  appoint  a  tryst  at  the  grave  of  an  ancient  king.  Thisbe 
comes  first,  but,  pursued  by  a  lioness,  drops  her  veil,  which  the  lioness  tears  to  pieces. 
Now  comes  the  lover,  who,  when  he  sees  the  veil  bloody  and  torn,  naturally  believes 
that  his  beloved  has  been  slain,  and  kills  himself.  Thisbe,  in  the  meantime,  has 
sought  refuge  in  a  cave.  When  she  returns,  she  sees  the  body  of  her  lover,  and  follows 
him  in  death.  In  Romeo  and  Juliet,  too,  the  lovers  are  separated  by  a  feud  between 
the  parents;  here,  too,  the  lovers  are  to  meet  at  a  grave  (or,  rather,  in  the  vault  itself) ; 
here,  too,  the  maiden  comes  first  to  the  trysting  place;  here,  too,  the  lover  is  deceived 
by  appearances  into  believing  that  his  sweetheart  is  dead,  and,  in  his  despair,  kills 
himself;  and  when  Juliet  sees  the  body  of  Romeo,  she,  too,  like  Thisbe,  kills  herself. 
In  this  way,  the  one  story,  step  by  step,  parallels  the  other. 

There  are  differences,  of  course,  which  the  critic  is  careful  to  indicate . 
The  progress  of  the  Pyramus  and  Thisbe  story  depends  largely  upon 
external  conditions  in  nature.  Thisbe,  pursued  by  a  lioness,  seeks  refuge 
in  a  cave.  In  Romeo  and  Juliet  the  human  will  asserts  itself.  Juliet  goes 
deliberately  into  the  vault  that  she  may  keep  faith  with  her  lover. 

From  this  point,  then,  Hauch  proceeds  to  his  analysis  of  the  play, 
and  toward  the  close  discusses  the  question  of  whether  or  not  Romeo  and 
Jtiliet  is  to  be  considered  a  tragedy  in  the  true  sense,  or  a  romantic  play 
with  an  unhappy  ending,  since  the  two  lovers  are  not  the  victims  of  their 
own  guilt.    His  answer  sums  up  also  his  interpretation  of  the  play. 

If  it  can  be  shown  that  Romeo  and  Juliet,  as  Lessing  has  said,  is  a  play  on  which 
love  itself  has  wrought;  wherein,  in  other  words,  one  of  the  mightiest  of  human 
passions  is  exemplified  in  the  characters,  in  all  its  depth  and  felicity  and  fullness,  in  all 
the  fresh  spring  beauty  that  accompanies  it,  and  in  all  its  devastating  agony, — then 
we  must  be  grateful  to  the  poet  for  it,  whether  it  fits  into  our  schemes  of  classification 
or  not. 

^  Kjobenhavn.     1869.    Romeo  og  Julie  pp.  201  fT.    Hamlet  pp.  271  ff. 
"  See  New  Variorum  Shakespeare,  Romeo  and  Juliet  p.  400  note. 


64  MAIU'iy  B.  RUUD 

No^^•  and  again  in  this  study  the  reader  will  find  some  of  that  fine- 
spun theorizing  which  is  the  bane  of  other  critics  besides  Hauch.  Thus 
his  passion  to  find  everj^iere  the  perfect  symmetry  of  the  pattern  leads 
him  into  such  aberrations  as  the  following: 

The  fifth  act  opens  in  Mantua.  Romeo  enters,  his  heart  lighter,  for  he  has  had  a 
happy  dream.  It  seemed  to  him  that  he  was  dead,  but  that  his  beloved  called  him  back 
to  life  with  a  kiss,  and  that  he  then  became  an  emperor.  This  premonition  of  good 
fortune  on  the  eve  of  misfortune  is  extremely  beautiful.  Perhaps  a  deeper  thought 
is  concealed  here,  namely  that  in  death  he  is  really  to  be  united  with  his  beloved, 
and  raised  to  a  higher,  hitherto  unknown,  glory. 

The  second  essay  in  the  volimie  concerns  itself  only  with  one  group 
of  characters  in  Hamlet,  Polonius,  Laertes,  and  Ophelia.  The  substance 
will  be  foimd  in  two  paragraphs : 

I  shall  try  to  show,  what  in  my  opinion  is  indisputable,  that  there  is  one  funda- 
mental idea  in  which  the  explanation  of  their  fate  is  to  be  sought.  We  shall  find 
once  more  that  Shakespeare  never  introduces  characters  merely  for  their  own  sake, 
but  in  accordance  with  a  basic  principle,  without  which  no  tragic  whole  is  possible. 

Polonius'  whole  strength  and  energy  are  concentrated  on  the  object  of  raising 
the  fortunes  of  his  family;  and  precisely  because  they  are  so  concentrated,  he  plunges 
himself  and  his  family  into  disaster.  This  is  the  basic  idea  which  the  poet  in  masterful 
fashion  and  with  rigid  consistency  presents  to  us  in  concrete  images. 

The  reader  will  not  always  agree  with  Hauch;  he  will  sometimes  think 
him  fanciful  and  over-methodical,  but  he  will  not  fail  to  respect  his  method, 
his  intelligence,  and  his  sttirdy  honesty. 

Some  years  after  Hauch's  study  of  Macbeth  in  Nordisk  Universitets- 
tidsskrift,  Clemens  Pedersen  published  in  the  same  magazine  a  char- 
acteristic essay  on  King  Lear.^^  He  finds  the  theme  of  Lear  in  the  Old 
Testament  doom,  "I  will  visit  the  sins  of  the  fathers  on  the  children, 
even  imto  the  fourth  generation."  This  is  a  solemn  and  terrifying  judg- 
ment, and  it  is  not  strange  that  commentators  have,  in  one  way  or  another, 
sought  to  evade  it.  But  it  can  not  be  evaded.  In  it  is  expressed  the 
continuity  of  law  and  the  iron  sequence  of  cause  and  effect.  If  the  prin- 
ciple itself  has  been  misunderstood,  it  is  not  strange  that  Lear,  in  which 
the  same  moral  law  is  embodied,  should  be  misinterpreted.  Tate,  for 
example,  has  not  tuiderstood  the  play,  and  ior  King  Lear  he  has  substi- 
tuted a  romance,  with  love  and  marriage,  and  poetic  justice.  Roscher's 
interpretation  of  Lear's  weakness,  "Er  hat  das  Wort  an  die  SteUe  der 
That,  die  Rede  an  die  SteUung  der  Gesinnung  gesetzt,"  is  too  vague  to 
mean  anything,  and  Ulrici's,  that  the  tragedy  depends  on  Lear's  demand 
for  the  love  of  his  daughters,  "nicht  als  Vater,  sondern  als  Liebender," 
is  blasphemy  or  nonsense.  Equall}^  mistaken  is  the  view  that  it  is  a  trag- 
edy of  imnatural  daughters,  for  in  that  case  Goneril  and  Regan  would 

'•  III  (1857).    pp.  59  ff.     Reprinted  in  Dramaturgisk  Kritik  pp.  150-96.     Kjobenhavn.     1850. 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM   IN   DENMARK  65 

be  mere  personifications  of  evil,  and  then  we  should  have  no  play  at  all. 
No;  the  crux  of  the  tragedy  of  Lear  lies  simply  in  this:  he  is  a  creature  of 
fantasy,  self-will,  and  vanity.  Undoubtedly  these  qualities  had  governed 
his  training  of  his  children.  It  had  bred  in  the  elder  sisters  contempt  and 
hate,  and  in  Cordelia,  a  dislike  for  Goneril  and  Regan,  and  a  determination 
not  to  be  as  they.  The  sins  of  the  father  are  visited  on  him  and  on  his  chil- 
dren. 


Since  a  Danish  actor  in  his  time  plays  many  parts,  and  is  identified 
in  the  popular  mind  with  many  roles,  though  these  as  a  rule  are  of  one  type, 
he  can  not  become  so  intimately  associated  with  one  character  as  do  some 
English  and  American  actors.  The  life  and  work  of  Frederick  Hoedt, 
however,  is  bound  up  with  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  as  intimately  as  that 
of  Sothern,  and  his  one  great  triumph  was  the  title-role  in  Hamlet.  Hoedt 
was  decidedly  more  than  a  professional  actor;  he  was,  if  not  a  distinguished 
philosopher,  at  least  a  serious  thinker.  He  had  come  to  the  stage  compar- 
atively late  in  life,  after  years  of  hesitation  and  reflection;  he  had  dis- 
tinct theories  of  his  art,  and  he  meant,  as  a  conscientious  artist,  to  carry 
these  out.  Very  soon,  however,  he  found  that  they  did  not  square  with 
those  of  the  director,  Johan  Ludvig  Heiberg,  and  in  the  end  he  was  forced 
to  leave  the  stage  long  before  his  time.  The  history  of  all  this  had  best 
be  left  to  another  chapter,  but  it  is  necessary  at  this  point  to  look  for  a  mo- 
ment at  the  little  book  in  which  he  laid  down  his  esthetic  creed — Om  det 
Skjonne.     Udkast  til  en  Christelig  MsthetikP 

The  essay  is  an  attempt  to  define  the  basis  of  our  appreciation  of  the 
beautiful,  to  differentiate  the  forms  of  art,  and  to  define  art  itself.  It  is 
dogmatically  theological,  and  aims  frankly  at  the  formulation  of  a  system 
of  Protestant  esthetics.  Protestantism  and  Luther,  according  to  Hoedt, 
first  made  secular  art  possible  by  accentuating  the  reality  and  legitimacy 
of  the  physical  world;  whereas  Catholicism  had  made  art  ascetic  and  tran- 
scendental. The  post-Raphaelites  he  explains  by  saying  that  they  were 
merel}^  nominal  Catholics.  The  distinctly  dogmatic  theological  premise 
is  found  in  the  assumption  that  man  can  not  attain  the  ideal  nor  embody 
it  in  art  because  of  original  sin. 

Hoedt  begins  with  two  postulates:  first,  that  Faith  is  the  root  of  all 
the  branches  of  spiritual  activity;  the  soul  of  all  spiritual  life.  Second, 
that  Christianity  is,  if  not  the  true,  although  he  believes  it  is  the  true, 
at  least  that  form  of  religion  which  is  nearest  the  true  form — a  reserva- 
tion, however,  which,  as  he  says,  he  makes  only  that  his  postulate  may 
be  unassailable. 

"  Kjobenhavn.    1856.    A  second  edition  in  18S7. 


(,6  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

He  then  goes  on  to  define  art  by  comparison  with  the  other  forms  of 

presenting  truth : 

Faith  is  the  personal  expression  of  the  Ideal,  particularly  in  the  form  of  the  Good; 
Science,  the  rational  expression  of  the  Ideal,  particularly  in  the  form  of  the  True; 
and  Art  the  imaginative  [billedlige]  expression  of  the  Ideal,  particularly  in  the  form 
of  the  Beautiful.  From  this  it  is  self-evident  that  the  man  of  science,  as  well  as  the 
artist,  must  be  a  man  of  faith. 

The  purpose  of  all  art,  then,  is  the  expression  of  the  ideal,  but  not 
of  an  ideal  which  has  no  real  existence.  It  must  be  the  Ideal  in  the  Real, 
the  Real  in  the  Ideal.  "He  [the  artist]  must  show  us  the  truth  in  reality,  so 
that  every  work  of  art  must  be  at  the  same  time  real  and  true,  or,  as  it 
may  also  be  phrased,  concrete  and  ideal."  To  the  possible  objection  that 
Truth,  to  find  expression  in  a  work  of  art,  must  in  itself  be  beautiful,  Hoedt 
answers  with  the  Keatsian  maxim  that  truth  is  always  beautiful.  The 
artist  "reveals  the  world  by  the  aid  of  the  ideal,  and  the  world  thus  illu- 
minated reflects  the  light  and  discovers  the  Ideal,  which  is  Christ." 

As  an  example  of  the  illimiination  of  life  through  the  Ideal,  and  of 
the  Ideal  through  life  thus  illtmiinated,  Hoedt  selects  Shakespeare's  Rich- 
ard III: 

The  problem  here,  as  always,  was  to  show  us  the  Ideal  [Christ],  and  the  means 
is  Richard,  one  of  the  greatest  scoundrels  who  ever  lived.  One  cannot  deny  that 
the  problem  was  interesting.  And  what  does  Shakespeare  do?  He  glorifies,  idealizes 
him.  But  how?  Does  he  make  Richard  better  or  more  beautiful?  Does  he  make 
of  him,  for  instance,  a  sentimental  scoundrel,  like  Bertram  in  Robert  le  Diable?  By 
no  means.  He  portrays  him  precisely  as  he  was.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  a 
more  bitter  dose  and  a  more  disagreeable  mouthful  for  all  false  idealists,  all  sugary 
estheticians,  and  all  worshippers  of  traditional  art  than  the  palsied,  lame,  hunch- 
backed criminal  who  in  this  play  is  the  tragic  hero.  So  far  from  apologizing  for  him, 
Shakespeare  has  made  him  even  more  hideous  than  he  really  was,  a  fact  which  Bulwer 
has  commented  on  in  The  Last  of  the  Barons — although  Bulwer  has  misunderstood 
Shakespeare.  In  reality  Shakespeare  has  not  magnified  Richard's  physical  deformity — 
only  poor  actors  do  that — he  has  merely  strongly  accentuated  it,  partly  through  the 
mouths  of  others,  as  an  expression  of  their  repugnance,  and  partly  through  Richard's 
own,  to  motivate  his  hate  of  God  and  man.  .  .  .  Shakespeare  has  done  Reality 
full  justice;  how  does  he  show  us  Truth,  the  Ideal?  First  of  all,  through  Richard's 
hypocrisy.  Richard  cloaks  himself,  as  he  confesses,  with  rags  of  scripture,  acknowledg- 
ing thereby  the  validity  of  the  very  law  [Fordring]  to  which  he  does  not  conform. 
In  the  second  place,  through  Richard's  fear.  A  sound  frightens  him.  An  old  bard 
has  prophesied  that  Richmond  shall  be  king,  and  Richard  is  so  terrified  that  he  shudders 
at  hearing  a  name — Rougemont — which  resembles  Richmond.  Finally,  the  theme 
is  borne  out  through  Richard's  despair.  When  panic-stricken  to  the  very  soul  at 
the  curses  of  those  he  has  murdered,  he  rushes  out  of  his  feverish  sleep  the  night  before 
the  battle,  and  exclaims: 

I  shall  despair, — There  is  no  creature  loves  me — 

who  does  not  feel  the  force  of  that  love,  so  necessary  to  everyone,  which  Richard 
has  cast  aside,  and  for  which  he  now  longs?     He  is  even  driven  to  call  upon  God: 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  67 


Have  mercy,  Jesu ! — 

He  checks  himself  promptly; 

Soft!     I  did  but  dream. 

But  the  very  correction  testifies  doubly  of  the  power  of  Christ,  for  it  shows  that 
Richard  has  invoked  Him  against  his  will.  And  when,  later,  he  tells  Catesby  of  the 
awful  dreams  he  has  had,  he  exclaims  involuntarily : 

By  the  apostle  Paul,  shadows  tonight 

Have  struck  more  terror  to  the  soul  of  Richard 

Than  can  the  substance  of  ten  thousand  soldiers. 

This  is  extraordinarily  beautiful.  Christ  is  so  irresistible  that  he  is  proclaimed  through 
the  mouth  of  Richard,  that  He  compels  this  colossal  demon,  against  his  will,  to  become 
His  apostle.  And  when  Richard,  after  his  horse  is  shot  from  under  him,  and  after 
he  has  fought  like  a  lion  and  slain  five  Richmonds,  exhausted  and  pale,  totters  on  to 
the  stage  with  the  ever  misunderstood  words, 

A  horse !  A  horse !     My  kingdom  for  a  horse ! 

— that  is.  Am  I  to  lose,  then,  for  a  miserable  horse,  this  crown  which  I  have  bought 
with  my  soul's  salvation?  Is  the  greatest  of  human  power  so  helpless  against  the 
slightest  touch  of  the  Almighty's  finger? — who  does  not  then  see  the  Eternal  Judge 
in  a  glory  of  majesty  that  causes  one  to  forget  the  criminal?  Never  has  a  great 
artist  presented  a  more  splendid  figure  of  Christ  through  a  greater  sinner.  And 
Richard  III  is  therefore  Shakespeare's,  that  is  to  say  the  world's,  greatest  tragedy." 

The  remainder  of  the  essay  does  not  concern  us.  Hoedt  goes  on  to 
discuss  Genius — the  ability  to  see  the  Ideal,  and  Talent,  the  power  of 
giving  visible  outward  expression  to  the  vision;  and  he  closes  with  an  analy- 
sis of  Sacred  Art — the  direct  embodiment  [Fremstilling]  of  the  Divine, 
to  which  no  human  power  attains. 

In  a  long  footnote,  Hoedt  advances  his  original  interpretation^  of 
the  words, 

A  horse !     A  horse !     My  kingdom  for  a  horse ! 
He  quotes  IV,  4,  and  continues: 

The  interpretation  of  these  words  up  to  the  present  has  been  that  Richard 
would  exchange  his  crown  for  a  horse;  and  I  do  not  think  that  I  err  when  I  say  that 
those,  and  they  are  many,  who  know  and  quote  this  speech,  in  ignorance  of  its  context, 
believe  also  that  it  is  Richard's  intention  to  flee,  that  he  has  lost  his  crown,  and  now 
seeks  to  escape,  so  that  he  may  at  least  save  his  life.  But  the  most  casual  glance  at 
the  context  will  show  that  this  interpretation  is  wrong.  When  Catesby,  who  so  well 
understands  him,  tries  to  get  him  away,  he  exclaims: 

Slave !     I  have  set  my  life  upon  a  cast 
And  I  will  stand  the  hazard  of  the  die. 

*"  Pp.  32-38. 

«I  note,  however,  that  a  writer  in  Notes  and  Queries  (February   11,   1893)  has  advanced   the  same 
theory.    See  New  Variorum  Richard  III  p.  422,  note. 


0.S  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

That  is  to  say,  he  will  not  flee.  But  what  would  he?  Back  to  the  battle?  That  is 
possible.  If,  however,  that  be  Richard's  purpose,  if  he  has  not  yet  given  up  the  fight, 
if  he  does  not  yet  consider  the  crown  lost,  how  can  it  ever  enter  his  head  to  give  it  away 
for  something  that  he  seeks  in  order  to  save  it?  .  .  .  Richard  might  have  said, 
"Half  my  kingdom  for  a  horse,"  for  if  he  won,  he  could  keep  the  rest;  but  he  would 
never  dream  of  saying,  "My  kingdom  for  a  horse!"  that  is,  "Since  I  desire  above  all 
things  to  preserve  my  crown,  1  will  give  it  away  for  a  horse,  by  which  I  might  possibly 
save  it."  Richard,  this  worshipper  of  the  crown,  would  be  the  last  man  to  whom 
such  an  idea  could  occur.  And  if  he  would,  for  whatever  reason,  return  to  the  battle, 
why  does  he  not  accept  Catesby's  offer?  If  that  were  his  meaning,  he  would  of  course 
have  answered,  "You  misunderstand  me.  I  do  not  want  to  flee.  On  the  contrary, 
I  will  keep  on  fighting.  Bring  me  the  horse  you  talk  about."  Instead  of  saying  this 
he  falls  into  self-communing: 

I  think  there  be  six  Richmonds  in  the  field,  etc. 

And  once  more,  without  motivation,  he  exclaims, 

A  horse !     A  horse !     My  kingdom  for  a  horse ! 

Another  explanation  of  these  words  is  that  Richard  is  mad  and  does  not  know  what 
he  is  saying.  But  this  is  no  explanation.  If,  on  the  contrary,  we  clearly  realize  the 
situation  and  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  play,  the  correct  interpretation,  it  seems  to 
me,  will  come  of  itself.  Richard  has  by  means  of  bloody  crimes  usurped  the  crown; 
the  Eternal  Justice,  through  the  shades  of  those  whom  he  has  murdered,  has  threatened 
him.  with  vengeance;  and  the  first  words  he  utters  when  he  wakes  from  his  dream 
are: 

Give  me  another  horse ! — Bind  up  my  wounds ! 

He  has  dreamed  that  his  horse  would  be  shot  from  under  him.  That  is  the  ven- 
geance which  the  spirits  threaten;  trivial  as  it  seems,  probably  the  worst  that  could 
come  to  him,  since  he  is  lame,  and  possibly  cannot  fight  on  foot.  The  scene  is  now 
changed  to  the  battlefield.  Catesby  rushes  in  and  calls  for  help,  tells  us  that  the 
horse  is  shot,  that  Richard  in  spite  of  it  is  fighting  with  supernatural  strength,  but 
the  battle  is  lost  if  he  does  not  receive  reinforcements.  This  is  the  second  time  the 
horse  is  mentioned.  It  is  plain  that  Shakespeare  has  given  it  special  emphasis.  And 
now  when  Richard  at  last  comes  himself,  and  his  first  words  are 

A  horse !     A  horse !     My  kingdom  for  a  horse ! 

does  it  not  flash  at  once  upon  the  mind  that  it  is  the  same  horse  which  has  been 
referred  to  all  the  way  through,  that  the  words  are  a  bit  of  reflection,  and  that  the 
meaning  is,  "A  horse,  a  miserable  horse,  is  to  lose  me  my  crown?"  Catesby,  who, 
like  the  commentators,  misunderstands  him,  answers: 

Withdraw,  my  lords;  I'll  help  you  to  a  horse. 

Richard  scorns  him,  and  is  lost  once  more  in  meditation: 

I  think  there  be  six  Richmonds  in  the  field; 
Five  have  I  slain  today  instead  of  him — 

a  reflection  which  is  closely  related  to  the  preceding,  for  Richard  plainly  means 
that  it  is  the  Spirits  who  have  slain  his  horse  and  deceived  his  eyes, — and  closes, 
still  more  softly  and  introspectively.  with  an  involuntary,  echo-like  repetition  of 
the  idea  of  which  he  cannot  rid  himself: 

A  horse !     A  horse !     My  kingdom  for  a  horse. 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  69 

Hoedt  closes  by  saying  that  he  does  not  doubt  that  everyone  who 
really  knows  Shakespeare  will  accept  his  interpretation.  He  shows  by 
an  example  from  Hamlet: 

But  two  months  dead! — nay,  not  so  much,  not  two. 
So  excellent  a  king  that  was,  to  this, 
Hyperion  to  a  satyr. 

to  show  that  Shakespeare  frequently  gave  reflection  the  form  of  an  ex- 
clamation. "It  is  difficult  enough  to  understand  how  the  true  interpre- 
tation has  been  lost.  But  even  this  is  comprehensible  if  we  remember 
that  Shakespeare  was  forgotten  for  over  a  century  and  a  half.  It  was 
Garrick  who  once  more  made  England  and  Europe  familiar  with  the 
creator  and  master  of  the  Protestant  drama.  Some  player,  doubtless 
to  gain  effect,  started  the  misunderstanding;  and  it  would  be  only  just 
if  another  actor  should  remove  it." 

Now  whatever  one  may  think  of  the  soundness  of  this  explanation, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  the  man  who  advanced  it  had  thought  deeply  and 
independently  on  matters  of  dramatic  interpretation,  and  that  he  was 
capable  of  contributing  to  the  stage  something  of  distinction.  That  con- 
tribution Hoedt  never  made,  partly  because  of  a  combination  of  untoward 
circumstances,  partly  because  of  faults  inherent  in  himself — lack  of  energy 
and  self-discipline,  and  a  challenging  pride  of  opinion. 


Annotated  school  editions  of  the  English  text  of  Shakespeare  are 
as  rare  in  Denmark  as  in  Norway.  Indeed,  only  Macbeth  has  been  so 
edited;  once  in  1855,  by  A.  Stewart  MacGregor  and  Mrs.  S.  Kinney ;*2 
later,  in  1903,  by  N.  Bogholm  and  Otto  Madsen."'^ 

In  the  first  of  these  the  editing  is  confined  to  glosses  on  words  unusual 
or  unknown  in  modern  English,  and  notes  on  difficult  passages.  The  second 
is  quite  a  different  affair,  fully  up  to  the  standard  of  the  best  school  edi- 
tions in  this  country.  There  is  an  adequate  essay  on  the  pre-Elizabethan 
and  Elizabethan  drama,  and  an  exhaustive  and  really  illuminating  body 
of  notes.  Certainly  the  book  accomplishes  what  the  editors  intended  that 
it  should  accomplish — the  removal  of  every  serious  obstacle  in  the  way 
of  a  Danish  reader  of  Macbeth  in  English. 

Lamb's  Tales  from  Shakespeare  have  likewise  been  twice  rendered 
into  Danish;  first,  anonymously,  in  1866,"*  then  by  L.  Bagger  in  18S4.« 

«  Macbeth.  Edited  with  Glossary  and  Notes  by  A.  Stewart  MacGregor  and  Mrs.  S.  Kinney.  Kj6ben- 
havn.     1885. 

"  The  Tragedy  of  Macbeth.  Med  Indlcdning  og  Kommentar.  N.  B6(rholm  og  Otto  Madsen.  Kjaben- 
havn.     1903. 

"  Charles  Lamb,  Shakcspeareske  Forlallinger.     Efter  Talcs  from  Shakespeare.     KjObenhavn.     1866. 

«  Charles  Lamb,  Shakes peareske  FortceUinger.  Oversatte  af  L.  Bagger.  Bibliothek  for  Ungdommen  III . 
Kjobenhavn.     1884. 


70  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

Both  translations  are  extremely  free;  large  parts  of  the  first,  indeed,  are 
rather  a  retelling  than  a  translation. 

Finall3^  in  this  short  list  of  editions  and  paraphrases,  should  be  men- 
tioned George  Stephens'  The  Shakespeare  Story  Teller. ^^  Stephens  was 
for  many  years  professor  of  English  at  the  University  of  Copenhagen. 
He  gave  unsparingly  of  his  time  and  energy  and  liberal  private  foi-tune 
toward  the  promotion  of  English  and  Scandinavian  studies.  His  mon- 
umental work  on  the  runic  inscriptions  is  still,  for  many  purposes,  inval- 
uable. That  this  doughty  old  scholar  shoiild  give  precious  time  to  pre- 
pare a  Shakespeare  primer  for  the  Danish  youth  will  surprise  those  who 
know  only  the  fruits  of  his  serious  research,  not  those  who  know  the  fidel- 
ity with  which  he  gave  himself  to  the  routine  of  his  university  teaching. 
The  plays  analyzed  are  The  Tempest,  Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona,  The  Merry 
Wives  of  Windsor,  Twelfth  Night,  Measure  for  Measure,  and  Much  Ado 
about  Nothing.  Each  play  is  preceded  by  a  list  of  characters  together  with 
a  short  characterization  of  each.  Then  follows  a  running  sketch  of  the 
action,  pieced  together  and  amplified  by  liberal  quotations  from  the  play. 

10 

In  recent  years  there  has  appeared  a  number  of  popular  treatments 
of  the  life  and  work  of  Shakespeare.  By  far  the  best  of  these  are  the  short 
articles  by  Niels  Moller  in  Frem,  a  sort  of  Danish  Sunday  magazine.*'^ 
The  first  is  a  charming  little  essay  on  the  time,  the  character,  and  the 
work  of  the  great  dramatist.  Entirely  unpretentious,  it  betrays,  none  the 
less,  the  competent  scholar  and  investigator.  The  same  quality  shows  even 
more  strikingly  in  the  second  article,  on  the  busts  and  portraits  of  Shake- 
speare, and  in  the  last,  an  account  of  the  structure  and  stagecraft  of  the 
English  theatre  in  Shakespeare's  time.  Altogether  a  series  of  popular 
articles  of  the  best  sort. 

Ludvig  Schroder,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  important  "Folkehojskole" 
movement,  addresses  himself  to  the  Danish  yeomanry.  His  article  (orig- 
inally a  lecture)  in  Den  danske  Hojskole^^  is  well  informed  and  readable. 
One  is  struck,  of  course,  by  the  deep  religious  tone,  and  the  honest  effort 
to  read  into  Shakespeare's  lines  a  religious  m.eaning  which  the  writer 
takes  to  be  the  immediate  expression  of  the  poet's  own  feeling.  The  same 
quality  is  found  in  his  book,  Shakespeare  og  Prover  af  hans  Digtning.*^ 
The  over-sophisticated  reader  will  probably  smile  at  the  naivete  of  it  all; 

••  The  Shakespeare  Story  Teller.  Introductory  leaves  or  outline  sketches,  with  choice  extracts  in  the 
words  of  the  poet  himself.  By  George  Stephens,  Professor  of  Old  English  and  of  the  English  Language  and 
Literature  at  the  University  of  Copenhagen.    Copenhagen.     1855. 

"  Frem.  Et  Ugeskrift.  Udkommer  hver  Sondag.  En  Rsekke  Populaere  Artikler  om  Shakespeare  af 
Niels  Moller,     1900.     1.  no.  29;  2,  no.  31;  3,  no.  35. 

"1  (1900-1901)  :16ff.    Kolding.    1903. 

*»  Trykt  som  Manuskript  (published  for  private  circulation).     Kolding.     1903, 


SHAKESPEAREAN    CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  71 

but  a  thoughtful  student  of  Danish  life  will  remember  the  tremendous 
influence  of  the  movement  which  Schroder  represents,  and  be  grateful 
to  him  for  bringing  a  poet  of  the  English  renaissance  so  tactfully  before 
the  farmers  and  cottagers  of  Denmark.  Naturally  he  emphasizes  Shake- 
speare's "Folkelighed"  ( Volkstiimlichkeit) ,  his  lack  of  learning,  and  his 
intimate  contact  with  the  people  of  the  English  countryside.  He  sug- 
gests that  Shakespeare's  prodigious  vocabtdary  is  due  in  some  measure 
to  this  familiarity  with  the  life  of  the  plain  people.  He  was  not  hampered, 
as  Milton  was,  by  book-learning. 

It  is  possible  that  the  great  dififerences  in  the  conditions  under  which  these 
poets  grew  up  had  some  influence  on  their  vocabularies.  Milton,  who  had  received 
a  Latin  school  and  university  education  was  poorer  in  impressions  of  nature  and 
life  than  Shakespeare,  who  knew  "little  Latin  and  less  Greek,"  but  the  more  of  his 
mother-tongue  as  it  was  spoken  by  farmers,  and  in  the  market  towns  by  towns- 
people and  yeomen  from  other  districts,  by  well-to-do  citizens,  and  by  poorer  folk. 

Bogholm  has  shown,  in  a  study  to  which  I  shall  refer  later,  that,  as 
compared  with  Bacon,  Shakespeare  is  decidedly  popular  in  diction  and 
syntax,  so  that  Schroder's  ex  parte  guess  proves  to  have  the  sanction  of 
philological  scholarship. 

Of  still  another  character  are  the  manuals  for  home  study  published 
by  Universitetsudvalget,  a  body  corresponding  to  the  older  extension  divi- 
sions of  our  universities  before  they  became  correspondence  study  depart- 
ments. Of  these  manuals  there  are  two,  one  edited  by  J.  Borup  in  1901;^" 
another,  somewhat  more  schematic,  by  P.  A.  Rosenberg,  in  1908.^^  Both 
are  models  of  their  kind,  neither  too  scanty,  nor  so  complex  as  to  defeat 
the  end  for  which  they  were  prepared. 

11 

There  is  no  occasion  to  enter  into  an  examination  of  the  Shakespearean 
studies  of  Georg  Brandes,  so  well  are  the  most  important  of  them,  embody- 
ing his  ripest  thought,  known  to  the  English-speaking  world.  Many, 
however,  are  still  untranslated,  and  it  seems  desirable  to  treat  briefly 
those  which  have  a  claim  to  remembrance. 

In  1870  Brandes  published  Kritiker  og  Portrcstter,^^  in  which  he  lirought 
together  some  thirty-eight  reviews  of  plays,  published,  originally  in  Illus- 
treret  Ttdende,  and  six  analytic  essays  on  Hans  Christian  Andersen,  Rubens, 
Meyer  Goldschmidt,'  Sainte-Beuve,  Kamma  Rahbek,  and  Merimde.  The 
reviews  have  been  stripped  of  all  allusions  to  the  performances  on  the 

'"  William  Shakespeare.  Ved  J.  Borup.  Grundrids  ved  folkelig  Universitetsundervisning,  no.  43. 
Udgivet  af  Universitetsudvalget.     Kjobenhavn.     1901.     22  pp. 

"  William  Shakespeare.  Ved.  P.  A.  Rosenberg.  Udgivet  af  Universitetsudvalget.  Kj<ibenhavn. 
1908.     14  pp. 

"  Kjobenhavn.     Gyldendalske  Boghandel. 


72  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

occasion  of  which  they  were  written,  so  that  they  constitute,  as  they  now 
stand,  a  notable  body  of  dramatic  criticism.  Among  these  essays  are  six 
on  Shakespeare,  A  Winter's  Tale,  The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor,  Viola 
(Snie  Beyer's  stage  version  of  Twelfth  Night),  The  Merchant  of  Venice, 
A.  Munch:  Lord  William  Russell,  and  Henry  IV — Hotspur.  The  last  two 
in  particular  command  attention,  for  in  them  Brandes  holds  up  the  contem- 
porary Danish  drama  before  the  miiTor  of  Shakespeare's  art. 

Munch  is  an  epigonus  of  Oehlenschlaeger,  and  his  play  a  feeble  imi- 
tation in  which  the  manner  of  the  master  has  become  mechanical  and 
lifeless,  as,  indeed,  all  Danish  tragedy  since  Oehlenschlaeger.  "In  the 
works  of  the  later  members  of  the  Danish  dramatic  school,  everything  has 
been  regularized.  The  iambic  pentameter  has  become  our  Alexandrine 
which  loses  through  the  meshes  of  its  net  the  infinite  trifles  that  make  up 
life.  The  little  delicate  traits  we  merely  feel,  the  concrete  in  its  distinctive- 
ness, the  natural,  the  anonymous,  have  disappeared,  and  the  five-act  drama 
has  become  our  regular  tragedy  form,  which  strives  in  vain  to  encompass 
the  infinitely  important,  the  cause,  the  origin,  the  symbol  of  life." 

In  the  last  of  the  dramatic  essays  in  the  volume,  which  bears  as  a 
subtitle  the  words  just  quoted,  "The  Infinite  Trifle  and  the  Infinitely  Impor- 
tant," Erandes  has  further  worked  out  with  immense  skill  this  duality  of 
ever\-  great  work  of  art.  He  shows  with  what  genius  Shakespeare  has  cre- 
ated a  character  of  abiding  vitality  by  combining  in  his  characterization 
the  seemingly  trivial  details  with  the  heroic  and  the  sublime.  The  essay 
was,  of  course,  primarily  a  protest  against  the  declamation  and  unrelieved 
grand  style  of  the  epigoni  of  Oehlenschlaeger,  but  it  remains  a  discerning 
analysis  of  genuine  realism  in  art,  and  as  such  it  is  known  to  have  had 
an  enormous  influence  on  two  such  various  m^en  of  genius  as  J.  P.  Jacob- 
sen  and  Strindberg.  Indeed,  it  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  no  more 
revealing  criticism  has  come  from  Brandes  in  all  his  immense  output  since 
the  remarkable  little  essay  was  written. 

By  no  means  so  successful  was  the  article  which  he  wrote  in  1884 
for  Stockholms  Aftonblad^^  on  the  relation  between  Hamlet  and  the  essays 
of  Montaigne.  Brandes  holds  that  not  only  did  Shakespeare  know  Mon- 
taigne, which  no  one  disputes,  but  that  Hamlet  shows  numerous  direct 
borrowings,  borrowings  so  flagrant  that  they  brought  upon  Shakespeare 
a  charge  of  plagiarism  from  his  own  contemporaries. 

It  was  almost  too  easy  for  Henrik  Schuck  to  riddle  Dr.  Brandes' 
argument.^*  Not  only  does  Schlick  show  the  flimsiness  of  the  case,  but 
he  convicts  the  great  Danish  critic  of  flagrant  ignorance  of  the  facts,  and, 

'"'  Two  articles.     December  27  and  29,  1884. 

"  Dr.  Brandes  Uppsats  om  Hamlet  och  Montaigne.    Finskt  Tidskrifl  for  ViUerhet,  Konst,  och  Polilik. 
Forra  halfaaret.     18S5. 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  73 

once  at  least,  of  what  seems  very  like  disingenuous  misquotation.    He 
closes  with  the  following  pretty  sharp  rebuke : 

Dr.  Brandes  is  an  authority  on  the  history  of  literature.  Few  have  surpassed 
him  in  discernment.  And  even  though  his  exposition  has  almost  the  beauty  of  a 
work  of  art,  this  excellence  has  never,  so  far  as  I  have  discovered,  been  gained  at 
the  expense  of  thoroughness.  Dr.  Brandes  ought  therefore  to  consider  himself  above 
throwing  dust  into  the  eyes  of  ignorant  readers,  and  he  has  so  much  of  real  genius 
that  he  does  not  have  to  shine  in  the  faux  brilliants  of  the  literary  charlatan. 

As  far  back  as  1885  Brandes  outlined  the  theory  of  the  sonnets  as 
the  expression  of  a  period  of  gloom  in  Shakespeare's  life,  a  theory  which, 
if  he  did  not  invent,  he  elaborated  and  popularized.  It  is  first  found  in 
his  review  of  Hansen's  translation  of  the  sonnets,^^  and  again,  ten  years 
later  in  two  articles  in  the  Norwegian  magazine  Samtiden.^^ 

The  following  year  (1895-96)  appeared  the  now  famous  book,  WiUiam 
Shakespeare.^''  The  judgment  of  scholars  on  this  work  is  pretty  well  fixed. 
It  is  a  great  achievement  simply  as  a  compilation  of  material.  But  it  is 
vastly  more.  It  is  full  of  brilliant  pictures  of  the  times,  of  subtle  and  pen- 
etrating character  studies,  of  acute  observations.  As  a  study  of  Shake- 
speare's life,  however,  it  has  rather  too  much  the  flavor  of  an  historical 
novel.  Nevertheless  it  amply  deserves  its  popularity,  for  nothing  so  com- 
pelling about  Shakespeare  has  been  written  in  any  language. 

Characteristic  of  the  attitude  of  competent  critics  is  Niels  Moller's 
review  in  Nordisk  Tidskrijt.^^  It  is  a  painstaking  examination  of  the 
work,  and  a  just  and  temperate  appraisal  of  its  merits.  He  points  out 
of  coiu"se,  that  Brandes'  reconstruction  of  the  life  of  Shakespeare  is  utterly 
untrustworthy,  but  he  praises  in  the  highest  terms  the  acumen  and  insight 
of  the  critic.  "Brandes  has  made  Shakespeare  real  where  before  he  was 
only  a  name.  He  teaches  men  to  read.  The  readers  may  then  correct 
their  teacher."  Theodor  Bierfreund,  in  Dansk  Tidsskrijt,^^  devoted  him- 
self mainly  to  an  onslaught  on  the  elaborate  theory  which  Brandes  has 
woven  about  the  sonnets.  Bierfreund  accepts  Sidney  Lee's  view  that 
they  are  in  the  main  conventional  literary  exercises,  brilliant  exercises, 
to  be  sure,  but  no  more.  They  were  probably  addressed  to  Southamp- 
ton for  the  very  obvious  purpose  of  getting  protection  and  patronage. 
When  they  had  secured  him  these,  Shakespeare  had  no  further  interest 
in  them.  "In  his  youth  Shakespeare  amused  himself  by  writing  sonnets. 
He  had  even  defiled  himself  with  them.     But  when  they  had  gained  for 

"  See  p.  44. 

56  6:1  ff.  and  49  ff.     1901. 

"  1-3  Bind.     Kobenhavn.     1895-96. 

"  Nordisk  Tidskrifl  for  Vetenskap,  Konsl  och  Induslri  pp.  501-19.     1896. 

"  Pp.  108  ff.     1899. 


74  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

him  what  they  could  gain,  he  threw  them  aside.  And  the  fine  sovil  of  the 
poet  remained  a  shining  silver  shield." 

It  is  altogether  appropriate  that  this  sketch  of  Danish  Shakespear- 
ean criticism  should  close  with  Professor  Valdemar  Vedel's  glowing  arti- 
cle in  Tilshieren,^^  Shakespeare  og  Rencsssancen.  Professor  Vedel  would 
give  us  a  sense  of  the  richness,  the  music,  and  the  color  of  Shakespeare's 
plays,  especially,  of  course,  of  the  comedies  and  the  romances.  "I  would 
give  the  impression  of  the  romance  and  the  romantic  part  of  Shakespeare's 
poetic  world  as  a  piece  of  music.  I  shoiild  like  to  analyze  it  into  its  themes 
and  motifs,  and  show  hov/  these — from  Terence  and  the  Greek  tales,  by 
way  of  French  coxart  epics  and  the  Florentine  novella,  Ariosto,  and  the 
Spanish  pastoral  novel — have  combined  to  produce  the  magical  art  of 
Cymheline,  The  Merchant  of  Venice,  and  As  You  Like  It."  With  deft- 
ness and  learning,  and  in  Danish  prose  as  exquisite  as  his  subject.  Pro- 
fessor Vedel  then  sketches  rapidly  what  classical  antiquit}^  the  Greek 
romances,  oriental  tales,  the  epics  of  chivalry,  indirectly,  and  directly, 
the  coiutly  literature  of  Italy  and  Spain,  France  and  England,  have  con- 
tributed to  the  romantic  world  of  these  plays. 

Others,  indeed,  have  drawn  upon  these  same  sources,  used  the  same 
materials,  but  they  have  never  used  them  in  the  interpretation  of  life. 
It  is  this  that  Shakespeare  has  added.  "We  feel  that  even  the  airiest  of 
the  comedies  contain  an  evaluation  of  life  and  lessons  for  life,  an  appeal 
to  and  a  strengthening  of  our  sense  of  good  and  evil,  which  is  foimd  neither 
in  Ariosto  nor  in  the  pastoral  romance.  It  is  this  weight  of  reality  which 
removes  Jaques,  Shylock,  Caliban,  out  of  the  realms  of  fairyland,  and 
plants  them  for  all  time  on  the  soil  of  earth  as  the  most  living  creatures 
art  has  brought  forth.  And  it  is  the  vigorous  moral  sense,  not  always 
able  to  dissolve  serious  matters  into  gracious  harmonies,  which  has  made 
of  romantic  fairy  and  novella  motifs  in  Othello,  Romeo  and  Juliet,  and  King 
Lear,  the  great  tragedy  which  Italy  had  not  the  seriousness  and  resolu- 
tion to  attain  to." 

12 

The  contributions  of  Danish  scholars  to  Shakespearean  scholarship 
are,  in  view  of  the  size  of  the  country,  fairly  nmnerous,  and  some  of  them 
of  decided  importance.  Of  course  it  is  not  always  possible  to  distinguish 
the  critical  essay  from  the  monograph,  but  usually  it  is  fairly  easy  to  say 
whether  a  writer  aims  to  give  an  interpretation  of  his  subject  or  new  infor- 
mation about  it.  In  the  following  section,  then,  I  wish  to  take  up  books 
and  essays  w^hich  embody  the  fruits  of  scientific  investigation. 

It  was  certainly  to  give  new  facts  that  Rahbek,  in  1816,  -^Tote  his 
valuable  article,  Shakespeareana  i  Danmark,  which,  accordingly,  ushers 

«')  10:489  5.     1910. 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  75 

in  Danish  Shakespearean  scholarship.  But  Rahbek  was  rather  a  littera- 
teur and  an  esthetician,  and  his  ventures  into  pure  research  were  usually- 
unfortunate.  Quite  a  different  man  was  Torkel  Baden,  a  classical  scholar 
of  the  old  school  before  Madvig.  Baden's  scholarship  is  now  discredited, 
and  most  of  his  attempts  in  criticism  are  worthless,  but  his  efforts  to  show 
that  Shakespeare  consciously  imitated  Seneca  have  a  certain  interest, 
inasmuch  as  they  foreshadow  the  results  of  later  investigation.  In  1819 
he  published  an  edition  of  the  ten  tragedies  attributed  to  Seneca,^^  with 
copious  quotations  of  parallel  passages  from  other  writers,  ancient  and 
modern.  One  or  two  of  them  are  from  Shakespeare.  His  thesis,  however, 
was  not  clearly  expressed  till  1825,  when  he  wrote  in  Ost's  ArcJnv  for  Psy- 
chologi,  Historie,  Literatur  og  K^mst,  a  pretentious  article  on  Shakespeare 
og  Seneca,^^  in  the  course  of  which  he  says: 

Shakespeare  knew  the  Ancients  minutely.  Every  page  in  his  works  bears  evi- 
dence of  this.  But  Seneca  was  his  favorite.  The  highly  metaphorical  and  ornate 
style  of  this  Spanish  poet  appealed  to  him  most.  He  characterizes  him  with  a  single 
stroke  when  he  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Polonius  these  words  in  praise  of  the  players: 
"Seneca  cannot  be  too  heavy,  nor  Plautus  too  light."  In  my  edition  of  Seneca's 
tragedies  I  have  now  and  then  referred  to  Shakespeare.  This  I  would  not  have 
done  had  Shakespeare  been  an  unlearned  man.  He  was,  on  the  contrary,  a  learned 
poet,  and  imitated  Seneca  in  a  thousand  ways. 

Unfortunately  Baden  spoiled  what  might  have  been  an  interesting 
anticipation  of  Mr.  Cunliffe's  work  by  confining  his  attention  to  tricky 
parallels  in  ideas  and  phraseology.  Of  the  more  significant  indebtedness 
of  Shakespeare  to  the  Senecan  tradition  he  was  qtiite  oblivious.  I  give 
below  a  few  specimens  of  his  method : 

1.  In  the  note  to  1.  992  of  Phaedra, 

O  sors  acerba  et  dura  famulatus  gravis, 
Cur  me  ad  nefandum  nuntium  casus  vocat  ? 

Baden  says: 

Quibus  consonat  Shakespeare  in 

Fellow,  begone,  I  cannot  brook  thy  sight; 
This  news  hath  made  thee  a  most  ugly  man. 

2  Henry  IV,  I,  1: 

Yet  the  first  bringer  of  unwelcome  news 
Hath  but  a  losing  office,  and  his  tongue 
Sounds  ever  after  as  a  solemn  bell, 
Remembered  knolling  a  departed  friend. 

Many  more  instances  are  given  in  the  later  essay,  of  which  I  quote 
four  or  five : 

^^  Lucii  Annaei  Senecae  Tragoediae.     Recensuit  Torkillus  Baden.     Havniae.     1810. 
"4:321  ff. 


76  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

1.  Antony  and  Cleopatra  II,  5  is  borrowed  from  Phaedra  II,  1  where  the  nurse 
describes  the  restlessness  of  Phaedra, 

Semper  impatiens  sui  mutatur  habitus. 

2.  Lear  (II,  4)  says, 

I  will  do  such  things, — 
What  they  are,  yet  I  know  not,  but  they  shall  be 
The  terrors  of  the  earth. 

in  imitation  of  Atreus  in  Thyestes  (269), 

Haud  quid  sit,  scio;  sed  grande  quidam  est. 

3.  Macbeth  (II,  1): 

Sleep  that  knits  up  the  ravell'd  sleave  of  care, 
The  death  of  each  day's  life, — 

Warburton  changes  death  to  birth,  overlooking  the  fact  that  this  apostrophe  to  sleep 
is  derived  from  Hercules  Fur  ens  (1065): 

0  domitor,  somne,  laborum,  requies  animi, 
pars  humanae  melior  vitae. 

4.  Hamlet  I,  4.  The  ghost  appears  to  Hamlet  in  the  same  shape  as  Hector 
to  Andromache,  Troades,  683.  Steevens  wastes  time  trying  to  discover  the  reasons 
for  the  ghost's  appearing  all  armed.  The  reason  is  that  Shakespeare  is  imitating 
Seneca. 

5.  Macbeth's  exclamation, 

Will  all  great  Neptune's  ocean  wash  this  blood 
Clean  from  my  hand? 

is  derived  from  Hercules  Furetis,  1323, 

Quis  Tanais,  aut  Nilus — etc.  abluere 
dextram  poterit. 

Baden's  cloistered  academic  learning  could  put  him  on  the  right  track: 
it  could  not,  unforttmately,  give  him  the  light  to  follow  it  up. 

Ever  since  Cohn's  epoch-making  book  Shakespeare  in  Germany  (1865)^^ 
students  of  the  English  drama  have  known  that  English  "instrumen- 
talists" visited  Denmark  as  early  as  1585.  That  these  "instrumental- 
ists" were  actors  is  fully  established.  The  first  scholar  to  call  attention 
to  the  presence  of  English  players  at  the  Danish  court  was,  however,  not 
Cohn,  but  the  Danish  historian  P.  V.  Jacobsen,  and  that  as  early  as  1844. 
In  (Dansk)  Historisk  Tidsskrift  for  that  year,^*  he  published  the  following 
entry  in  the  records  of  the  city  chamberlain  of  Helsingor:  "giifvet  for  att 
lade  ferdige  thett  Planckewerck  imellem  Lauritz  Schriffvers  og  Raadhus 
Gordenn,  som  Folck  red  neder  thend  Tid  the  Engelske  lechte  i  Raadhus 
Gordenn  4  Sk."^^    Jacobsen  asstmies  that  these  players  actually  performed 

« London.     1865. 

"5:524-28. 

"  "For  the  repair  of  the  fence  between  Lauritz  Skriver's  and  the  town  hall,  which  the  people  rode 
down  [i.e.,  caused  to  collapse  by  climbing  upon  it]  while  the  English  were  giving  their  performance  in  the 
courtyard  of  the  town  hall,  4  Sh." 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  77 

their  play  in  English,  and  from  the  fact  that  the  crowd  demolished  a  fence 
in  their  eagerness,   concludes  that  they  must  have  been  very  popular. 

Jacobsen  did  not  investigate  the  matter  further.  In  1870,  however, 
V.  C.  Ravn,  the  distinguished  historian  of  Danish  chamber  music,  pub- 
lished an  admirable  little  article,  English  Instrumentalists  at  the  Danish 
Court  in  the  Time  of  Shakespeare.^^  This  article,  based  in  the  main  on  the 
account  books  of  the  royal  exchequer,  proves  that  as  early  as  1579  King 
Frederick  II  maintained  English  "instrumentalists"  at  coiirt,  that  these 
"instrumentalists"  were  actors  rather  than  musicians,  and  that  they  re- 
ceived somewhat  higher  pay  than  the  German  "instrumentalists,"  who 
probably  were  musicians.  Not  all  of  these  actors  were  Englishmen;  one, 
and  the  best  paid  of  the  troupe,  Mathias  Zoega,  was  an  Italian  "dancer"; 
one,  Johann  Kraft,  may  have  been  a  German;  but  Johann  Person  (Pearson), 
Johann  Kerch  (Kirk),  and  certainly  the  unfortunate  Thomas  Bull,  of  whom 
more  later,  were  English.  The  explanation  of  the  ciirious  fact  that  they 
are  included  under  the  appellation  "English"  is  simply,  according  to  Ravn, 
that  "instrumentalists"  is  a  generic  term  applied  to  minstrels  and  actors 
alike ;  whereas  an  "English  instrumentalist,"  whatever  his  nationality,  was  an 
actor  par  excellence^  The  most  significant  part  of  Ravn's  essay,  that 
which  makes  it  of  enduring  worth,  is  that  in  which,  on  the  basis  of  materials 
in  the  Danish  archives,  he  follows  the  fortunes  of  a  group  of  Lord  Leices- 
ter's players  who  came  to  the  court  at  Helsingor  from  England  with 
a  Danish  embassy  in  June,  1586.  Included  in  this  band  of  wandering 
players  were  actors  no  less  distinguished  than  Thomas  Pope,  George 
Bryan,  and  William  Kemp.  Kemp,  indeed,  was  not  a  regular  member 
of  the  troupe, — which,  besides  Pope  and  Bryan,  was  made  up  of  Thomas 
Stevens,  Thomas  King,  and  Robert  Percy — but  he  seems  to  have  been 
associated  with  them  during  June,  July,  and  August,  1586.  Cohn,''^  several 
years  before  Ravn,  had  discovered  evidence  of  the  presence  of  the  Eng- 
lish player  troupe  in  Denmark,  but  he  relied  wholly  on  German  records, 
which  the  entries  in  the  Danish  account  books  complement  in  a  most  inter- 
esting way,  and  Ravn  was  the  first  to  discover  that  the  famous  clown, 
William  Kemp,  had  at  one  time  appeared  at  Elsinore.  For  further  infor- 
mation concerning  this  interesting  chapter  in  the  history  of  the  Elizabe- 
than stage,  the  reader  must  be  referred  to  Ravn's  essay,  now  accessible 
in  an  English  translation,"^  and  to  Mantzius'  The  English  Stage  in  the 
Time  of  Shakespeare."^^ 

Ravn  relates  in  the  course  of  his  article  that  one  of  the  aforementioned 
"instrumentalists,"   Thomas   Bull,   was  executed  at   Helsingor   "for  his 

"  For  I de  og  Virkeligheds  1:75-92.     1870. 

«'  This  company,  according  to  Ravn,  remained  in  the  king's  service  till  the  autumn  of  1586. 

«'  Op.  cit.  xxiii. 

«•  In  SammelbUnde  der  Internationalcn  Musik-Cesellschaft  7:550  £1.     Leipzig.     1906. 

'1  London,  1904. 


78  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

e\Tl  deeds'  sake"  on  August  19,  1586.  What  the  evil  deeds  were  he  does 
not  say,  but  full  light  has  been  thrown  on  the  matter  by  Adolph  Hansen 
in  a  beautifull)'-  worked  out  article  in  Tilskueren  for  July,  1900,  En  Notits 
om  cngclske  Instrumentister  ved  Frederik  den  andens  Hof.''^  From  ,the 
court  records  now  in  the  provincial  archives  of  Sjaelland,  Hansen  has 
pieced  together  the  tragic  story.  Thomas  Bull  lodged,  during  his  stay 
at  Helsingor,  at  the  house  of  an  Englishwoman,  Gertruid  Cletten  (Ger- 
trude Cla3^on?)  with  whose  daughter  Elizabeth  he  fell  madly  in  love. 
Elizabeth,  how^ever,  preferred  his  rival,  Thomas  Boltiam  (Bolton),  and 
they  were  ultimately  engaged.  Bull's  anger  and  jealousy  were  aroused, 
and  from  anger  to  hot  words  and  miurder,  the  step  was  easy  for  the  wander- 
ing actor  of  Shakespeare's  time.  The  two  men  met  one  day  at  Mistress 
Clayton's  house,  and  after  a  violent  altercation,  Thomas  Bull  ran  his  sword 
through  his  rival's  body.  For  this  crime  he  was  tried  and  executed  before 
Kronborg  some  time  after  August  26,  1586.  The  date  mentioned  by  Ravn, 
Hansen  shows  to  be  an  error,  since  the  murder  w^as  not  committed  till 
August  24.  The  dociunents  in  the  case  give  a  particularly  revealing  glimpse 
of  middle-class  life  in  Helsingor  at  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century,  par- 
ticularly of  the  considerable  English  colony  settled  there.  And  the  quarrel 
between  the  two  recalls  the  turbulent  Bohemia  in  which  Marlowe  m.et 
his  death. 

All  this  suggests,  too,  the  question  of  whether  or  not  Shakespeare 
ever  was  in  Denmark.  There  is  not,  as  Hansen  points  out,  a  scintilla  of 
evidence  that  he  ever  was.  But  he  had  in  the  players  who  had  visited 
Denmark  sources  of  information  which  he  did  not  fail  to  use.  They  could 
tell  liim  of  courtiers  with  names  like  Guildenstern  and  Rosencrantz,  which 
offended  so  many  eighteenth  century  commentators;  they  could  tell  him, 
too,  of  Danish  students  who  sought  the  fount  of  Lutheran  orthodoxy  at 
Wittenberg;  of  the  carousals  at  the  new  castle  at  Elsinore,  with  its  bas- 
tions and  ramparts  rising  sheer  from  the  Sound. 

Julius  Martensen  contributed,  besides  his  essay  on  the  adaptation 
of  Shakespeare's  plays,  tvv^o  notes  on  Cymheline  to  the  Jahrbuch  der  deutsch- 
en  Shakespeare-Gesellschaft.  In  the  earlier  of  these^-  he  points  out,  first, 
that  the  stage  direction  at  the  close  of  lachimo's  monologue  (II,  2) 
is,  for  purposes  of  a  modern  production,  misplaced,  since  it  is  clear  that 
lachimo  is  actually  in  the  chest  diuing  the  monologue;  it  should,  accord- 
ingly, be  moved  four  lines  further  up.  On  the  Elizabethan  stage  the  chest 
was  not  used.  Martensen  imagines  that  the  whole  scene  was  played  on 
the  inner  stage.  "The  ctirtains  separating  this  from  the  larger  (outer) 
stage  were  drawn  back;  the  princess  was  discovered  lying  in  the  bed; 
iehind  one  half  of  the  curtain  stood  the  imaginary  chest.    When  lachimo 

"  Pp.  549  fif. 
"4:381.     1869. 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  79 

had  uttered  his  'Time,  Time,'  the  curtains  were  again  drawn.  The  later 
stage  direction,  'Scene  closes,'  also  points  to  such  an  arrangement."  Second, 
Martensen  offers  a  new  gloss  of  the  difficult  lines : 

.    .    .    that  dawning 
May  bare  the  raven's  eye. 

According  to  Martensen  "by  the  raven  is  meant  the  chest  with  its  inky 
darkness."  In  the  second  note,  contributed  to  the  Jahrbuch  of  1875," 
he  withdrew  his  own  explanation  and  substituted  another.  He  now  be- 
lieves that  the  expression  means  what  it  says,  the  raven's  eye.  This  figure 
was  strange  to  English  critics  of  the  eighteenth  century,  who  thought  that 
Shakespeare  should  have  spoken  of  the  lark's  eye.  But  the  lark  awakens 
the  morn,  not  the  morn,  the  lark.  This  conception  is  found  often  in  Shake- 
speare. The  real  explanation  is  indicated  by  two  lines  from  Troilus  and 
Cressida  (IV,  2) : 

O,  Cressida,  but  that  the  busy  day, 

Waked  by  the  lark,  hath  roused  the  ribald  crows. 

"The  lark  awakes  the  day,  and  the  day  awakes  the  birds,  first  of  all 
the  crow.  With  the  crow  awakens,  of  course,  the  ravens,  and  in  the  metre 
of  lachimo's  line,  the  disyllabic  raven  fitted  better  than  the  monosyllabic 
crow." 

Before  passing  to  Theodor  Bierfreund's  noteworthy  studies,  two  mas- 
ters' dissertations  of  the  University  of  Copenhagen  should  at  least  be  men- 
tioned. Both  were  written  at  the  suggestion  and  under  the  direction  of 
Professor  George  Stephens,  professor  of  English  at  the  university.  Lund- 
beck,  in  Det  engelske  Drama  for  Shakespeare,''^  treats,  as  the  title  indicates, 
of  the  English  drama  before  Shakespeare.  The  book  is  divided  into  two 
parts:  I  The  Development  of  the  Drama  to  ca.  1580;  II  Shakespeare's 
Predecessors  1580-1593.  Part  I  treats  in  separate  chapters  of  the  mys- 
tery or  miracle  play,  the  moralities,  and  the  secular  drama  to  1580.  Part 
II  then  gives  a  chapter  to  each  of  Shakespeare's  notable  predecessors, 
Lyly,  Marlowe,  Greene,  Peele;  and  a  chapter  to  a  group  of  minor  dram- 
atists, Kyd,  Lodge,  Chettle,  Munday,  and  Thomas  Wilson.  In  the  two 
closing  chapters  the  author  sketches  for  us  the  Elizabethan  stage  and  the 
chief  characteristics  of  the  time.  Lundbeck's  dissertation  is  a  well  ordered 
compilation  without  original  value,  but  no  doubt  for  its  day  a  useful  hand- 
book. Of  the  same  quality  is  Kalisch's  Shakespeare's  Younger  Contempo- 
raries and  Successors'^  the  only  difference  between  this  book  and  Lundbeck's 
being  that  it  is  rather  better  written. 

These  are  slight  things,  however;  of  real  importance  are  two  mono- 
graphs by  Theodor  Bierfreund,  Palemon  og  Arcite — En  Literatur-historisk 

"  10:382.  1875. 

'*  KjObenhavn.  1890. 

'6  Kjobenhavn.  1890. 


so  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

Undcrsogclse  som  Bidrag  til  Shakespeare  Kritiken~'^  and    Shakespeare  og 
hans  Kunst.''^ 

Palemon  og  Arcite  is  a  dissertation  submitted  to  the  University  of 
Copenhagen  in  candidacy  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy.  The 
first  part  is  taken  up  with  a  very  learned  study  of  the  Palemon  and  Arcite 
stor}^  as  it  is  found  in  literature  in  various  times  and  places:  Boccaccio, 
La  Tescide;  Chaucer,  The  Knightes  Tale;  and  James  I,  Tlie  King's  Quair. 
Then  follows  a  transition  chapter  in  which  the  author  first  briefi}''  sketches 
the  presence  of  the  motif  in  the  Elizabethan  drama  and  in  Shakespeare, 
and  proceeds  to  a  discussion  of  the  attitude  of  scholars  in  regard  to  the  only 
extant  play  in  which  the  motif  is  used,  The  Two  Noble  Kinsmen.  With 
few  exceptions  critics  agree  in  attributing  the  play  to  Shakespeare  and 
Fletcher.  The  methods  by  which  this  agreement  has  been  reached  are, 
in  the  author's  opinion,  not  at  all  convincing.  The  real  question  is.  Could 
Shakespeare  have  written  The  Two  Noble  Kinsmenf  Bierfreund  answers 
in  Shelley's  words,  "I  do  not  believe  that  Shakespeare  wrote  a  word  of  it." 
To  estabHsh  this  contention  is  the  aim  of  the  second  part  of  the  disser- 
tation. Briefly,  Bierfreund  holds  that  Shakespeare  could  have  written 
nothing  so  bad,  that  the  plot,  psychology,  and,  in  particular,  the  female 
characters,  are  typical  of  Fletcher,  and,  finally  that  the  play  conflicts 
with  a  generally  accepted  postulate,  that  Shakespeare  never  imitated  him- 
self; for  it  aboimds  in  feeble  pseudo-Shakespearean  passages  and  incidents. 
The  argument  is  ingenious  and  half  convincing.  Bierfreund  shows 
differences  between  Shakespeare  and  Fletcher  in  technique,  psychology, 
and  attitude  toward  women  so  fimdamental  as  to  serve  as  useful  tests 
of  authorship.  His  case  is  weak,  however,  simply  because  an  argument 
based  purely  on  internal  evidence  can  never  be  anything  else. 

The  basic  ideas  of  the  dissertation  are  systematised  and  elaborated 
in  the  large  monograph,  Shakespeare  og  hans  Kunst.  Shakespeare's  ulti- 
mate aim  was  complete  artistic  success  in  tragedy;  his  immediate  aim, 
material  success  by  giving  the  people  what  they  wanted.  Through  long 
and  rigid  schooling  in  Senecan  tragedy,  chronicle  plays,  comedies,  and 
the  later  histories,  he  attained  his  goal  in  the  great  tragedies.  He  devel- 
oped, in  other  words,  a  definite  artistic  sense  and  a  pretty  definite  tech- 
nique. He  learned  to  prepare  and  motivate  action,  to  give  to  his  plays 
ordered  and  proportioned  structure  to  the  last  detail,  to  present  character 
in  ah  its  shadings,  and  to  create  a  type  of  womanhood,  which,  in  all  its 
variations,  exhibits  certain  unvarying  qualities.  Shakespeare's  women 
are  better  and  nobler  than  the  men;  they  are  characterized  by  an  unyield- 
ing fidelity  to  the  vcioxi  of  their  choice  and  by  a  normal  and  sound 
sex-life,  equally  remote  from  sensuality  and  asceticism.     These  are  the 

'8  Kjobenhavn.  1891. 
"  Kjobenhavn.  1898. 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  81 

fundamentals  of  Shakespeare's  art,  and  they  afford  the  only  adequate  basis 
for  the  judgment  of  the  genuineness  of  anonymous  plays  attributed  to  him. 
The  most  interesting  chapters  are  the  last  two,  Kong  Henrik  VIII, 
Shakespeare's  Kvinder  and  Mismod.  The  first  is  an  admirable  study  of 
Queen  Katharine  and  Anne  Bullen.  Bierfreund  points  out  how  flaw- 
lessly Katharine  is  presented  and  how  perfectly  she  exemplifies  Shake- 
speare's ideal  of  woman.  However  false  and  vacillating  men  may  be, 
she  is  ever  constant  to  one.  She  is  held  by  an  inner  necessity,  governed 
b}'  inexorable  laws  of  her  being;  for  she  is  no  mere  doll.  She  is  the  master 
of  her  own  body,  never  handed  about,  without  will  of  her  own,  from  one 
to  another.  This  is  Shakespeare's  conception  of  woman,  and  he  shares 
it  with  none  other.  Compare  with  Katharine  the  aimless,  colorless,  spine- 
less Anne  Btdlen,  who  seems  to  go  through  the  play  like  a  marionette  figiire. 
Katharine  springs  from  the  genius  of  Shakespeare;  Anne,  from  Fletcher's. 
Bierfreund  then  repeats  the  argument  from  his  dissertation  to  show  that 
The  Two  Nohle  Kinsmen  is  certainly  not  Shakespeare's,  the  chief  reason  for 
believing  which  is  that  Emilia  belongs  not  to  Shakespeare's  gallery  of 
women,  but  to  Fletcher's.  The  chapter  closes  with  the  following  reveal- 
ing summary: 

In  the  foregoing  study  I  have  avoided  all  speculations  about  Shakespeare's 
personal  opinions;  Shakespeare's  works  are  like  the  Bible,  anything  may  be  proved 
from  them.  I  have  confined  myself  to  his  art,  wherein,  at  least,  one  has  a  firm  basis, 
and  I  have  examined  on  definite  lines  a  number  of  his  plays;  I  have  shown  that  he 
had  tangible  artistic  and  ethical  principles,  which  he  invariably  followed.  .  .  . 
In  the  main  I  have  confined  myself  to  the  best  known  plays,  but  anyone  may  examine 
the  others  to  satisfy  himself  that  I  have  not  laid  them  on  a  Procrustes'  bed,  or  arrived 
at  my  conclusion  by  picking  out  extracts  which  by  chance  suited  my  purpose. 

In  the  last  chapter,  Mismod,  Bierfreund  turns  again  on  the  "period 
of  gloom"  theory,  so  persuasively  presented  by  Brandes  "with  a  supreme 
artistry  that  fairly  takes  one's  breath  away."  The  theory  lacks  every 
basis.  The  sonnets  can  not  be  used  as  evidence,  for  the  reason  that  they 
are  impersonal,  like  the  plays.  "They  are  written  partly  to  compete  with 
other  poets,  partly  to  please  the  young  nobility,  and  partly  as  a  means 
of  training  for  the  dialogue  of  the  dramas."  Nor  can  Troilus  and  Cres- 
sida,  Timon  oj  Athens,  Pericles,  and  The  Two  Nohle  Kinsmen  be  used  to 
support  the  theory.  Bierfreund  argues  at  great  length  that  these  plays 
are  not,  even  in  part,  by  Shakespeare.  A  poet  who  had  proved  himself 
the  master  of  dramatic  technique,  who  had  slowly  and  painfully  achieved 
a  conscious  art,  could  simply  not  have  written  these  plays  or  have  had  any 
hand  in  them.  "Shakespeare,  mener  jeg,  satte  kun  cXgte  Penge  i  Omlob" ; 
i.e.,  Shakespeare  did  not  deal  in  counterfeit  coin. 

Bierfreund,  it  will  be  seen,  deals  wholly  with  matters  of  taste  and  judg- 
ment, on  which  agreement  can  never  be  hoped  for.  But  his  taste  seems 
sure,  his  judgment  sound,  and  there  is  a  scientific  coolheadedness  in  the 


S2  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

marshalling  of  the  evidence  which  raises  his  criticism  to  a  plane  incompar- 
ably higher  than  mere  individualistic  impressionism.  Added  to  it  all  is  a 
crisp,  acid  style,  which  fairly  bites  into  one's  mind.  Even  Dr.  Brandes' 
more  celebrated  book  is  not  more  compelling. 

I  need  only  refer  to  two  other  Danish  contributions  to  Shakespearean 
investigation,  Mantzius'  The  English  Theatre  in  the  Time  of  Shakespeare"^^  and 
Goll's  Criminal  Types  In  Shakespeare,"^'^  since  both  are  accessible  in  English 
translations.  These  studies  derive  a  certain  interest  and,  no  doubt,  a  cer- 
tain value,  from  the  fact  that  they  are  written  not  by  academic  scholars, 
but  by  men  of  affairs  whose  daily  work  has  brought  them  into  contact 
with  many  of  the  problems  they  discuss.  Mantzius  was  for  many  years 
the  most  distinguished  of  Danish  actors,  and  GoU,  an  efficient  police 
official.  Goll's  Types  of  Criminals  was  translated  into  German  by  Oswald 
Gerloff,  in  1908,  with  an  introduction  by  Franz  von  Lisst.  Dr.  von  Lisst, 
without  attempting  a  detailed  comparison  with  Kohler's  Verhrechertypen 
in  Shakespeares  Dramen,  does  indicate  the  basic  difference  between  the  two 
works  in  one  sentence: 

Es  lage  ausserordentlich  nahe,  die  Ergebnisse  mit  einander  zu  vergleichen,  zu 
denen  die  beiden  Schriftsteller  gelangen;  und  der  Vergleich  wurde  um  so  interes- 
santer  sein,  als  sie  beide  von  ganz  verschiedenen  Standpunkten  ausgehen,  und  mit 
verschiedenen  Methoden  arbeiten;  dort  der  hegelisierende  Vertreter  der  Willens- 
freiheit,  hier  der  streng  wissenschaftliche  Determinist;  dort  der  deutsche  Professor 
der  Rechtswissenschaft;  hier  der  danische  Polizeibeamte. 

A  totally  different  line  of  investigation,  and  one,  I  think,  with  immense 
possibilities,  was  opened  by  Professor  Otto  Jespersen  in  his  lecture  before 
the  Royal  Danish  Scientific  Society  on  the  language  of  Shakespeare, 
December  4,  1903.  The  substance  of  the  lecture  may  now  be  found  in 
Chapter  IX,  Shakespeare  and  the  Language  of  Poetry,  of  his  Growth  and 
Structure  of  the  English  Language.  A  footnote  to  this  chapter^°  summar- 
izes an  article  in  Politiken  newspaper, ^^  in  which  Professor  Jespersen 
had,  some  months  before,  pointed  out  a  few  distinct  differences  between 
Shakespeare's  and  Bacon's  use  of  specific  words — synonyms  or  parallel 
forms,  like  too — also,  might — mought,  among — amongst. 

Acting  on  these  suggestions.  Dr.  Bogholm  investigated  the  whole 
subject.  His  study.  Bacon  og  Shakespeare:  En  Sproglig  Sammenligning,^^ 
reveals,  as  Jespersen  says,  "an  astonishing  number  of  discrepancies  between 
the  two  authors."  Dr.  Bogholm,  by  a  detailed  examination  of  Bacon's 
and  Shakespeare's  language,  shows  that  the  differences  are  so  great  and 

"8  Kobenhavn.     1901.     English  translation,  London,  1904. 
"  Kobenhavn  og  Kristiania.     1907.     English  translation,  London,  1909. 
sop.  217. 

a  January  21,  1902. 

^  Kobenhavn.     1906.    A  dissertation  submitted  to  the  faculty  of  Arts  and  Letters  of  the  University 
of  Copenhagen  in  candidacy  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy. 


SHAKESPEAREAN   CRITICISM  IN  DENMARK  83 

SO  consistent  that  one  wotdd  have  deemed  them  impossible  in  contem- 
poraries writing  the  same  langtiage.  In  our  day,  with  the  schoolmaster 
abroad  in  the  land,  they  would  be  impossible.  The  results  are  convincing 
precisely  because  the  monograph  is  not  a  study  of  style  or  isolated  words, 
but  of  language,  diction,  grammatical  forms,  and  inflections,  and  the  dif- 
ferences noted  are  decisive  because  they  are  found  in  inconspicuous  words 
and  forms,  which  the  writer,  be  he  never  so  meticidous,  uses  instinctively 
and  without  reflection.  The  general  conclusion,  which,  however,  is  not  the 
thing  that  gives  the  book  its  value,  is  that  "Bacon  is  the  more  conser- 
vative, strictly  grammatical  writer,  whereas  Shakespeare  is  popular  and 
unconstrained."  The  real  value  lies  in  the  almost  mathematical  demon- 
stration of  the  fact  that  Bacon  could  not  have  written  Shakespeare's 
English  if  he  had  tried;  he  would  have  betrayed  himself  a  dozen  times  on 
every  page. 

Bogholm  is  not  interested  in  the  Baconian  theory.  For  him  this  has 
been  disposed  of  long  ago.  He  is  interested  ptuely  in  a  scientific  compar- 
ison of  the  language  of  the  two  men.  And  never  was  the  residt  of  a  linguis- 
tic investigation  more  decisive  or  more  illuminating.  Professor  Manly^' 
has  suggested  that  what  we  need  in  determining  mooted  questions  of 
authorship  in  the  Elizabethan  drama  is  a  body  of  facts  about  the  language 
of  each  author.  If  we  know  the  facts  about  Fletcher's  language,  we  shall 
know  whether  he  could  have  written  The  Two  Noble  Kinsmen.  In  such 
a  way,  too,  we  may  be  able  to  break  up  the  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  plays 
into  parts  that  must  have  been  written  by  Beaumont  and  parts  that  must 
have  been  written  by  Fletcher.  Differences  in  style  are  more  or  less  sub- 
jective, and  hence  matters  of  opinion;  there  can  be  no  two  opinions  about 
consistent  differences  in  usage  and  grammar.  The  possibilities  of  Bog- 
holm's  method  are,  it  seems  to  me,  very  great. 

»^  In  The  Book  of  Homage  lo  Shakespeare.    Edited  by  Israel  Gollancz.      Oxford  University  Press.    1916. 


CHAPTER    III 
SHAKESPEARE    ON    THE    DANISH    STAGE 

As  early  as  1788  Knud  Lyne  Rahbek  cherished  some  vague  plans 
of  incorporating  Hamlet  into  the  repertoire  of  the  Royal  Theatre;^  but 
apparently  this  was  merely  one  of  those  miiltitudinous  projects  of  his 
which  ever  remained  a  nebulous  wish.    At  all  events,  it  came  to  nothing. 

Some  half-dozen  ^^^ears  later,  Rahbek's  good  friend  Hans  Wilhelm 
Riber,  actuaU}^  did  translate  Tate's  stage  version  of  Lear,^  but  for  some 
reason  it  was  never  played,  and  almost  at  once  forgotten.  Rahbek,  indeed, 
who  knew  Riber  well,  and  who  was  pretty  well  informed  as  to  what  was 
going  on  at  the  theatre,  declared  in  1816,^  that  until  the  question  of  putting 
on  Foersom's  translation  of  Lear  came  up  many  years  afterward,  he  had 
never  even  heard  of  Riber 's.  It  must  be  confessed  that  neither  Shake- 
speare nor  the  Royal  Theatre  suffered  from  the  swift  oblivion  that  over- 
took Riber's  adaptation  of  Tate.  Rahbek  ventures  to  believe  that 
Shakespeare's  good  genius  had  a  hand  in  causing  it  to  be  forgotten. 

It  was,  appropriately  enough,  not  Riber,  but  Foersom  who  was  to 
bring  Shakespeare  on  the  Danish  stage.  In  1803  he  sent  his  translation 
of  Julius  Caesar,  in  which  he  hoped  to  play  Antony,  to  the  administration 
of  the  theatre.  Rahbek  seconded  his  efforts  earnestly,  but  without  avail. 
One  director,  Kierulf,  firmly  declined  to  have  an3i;liing  to  do  with  the  pro- 
ject. He  solemnly  declared  that  if  they  began  with  Shakespeare,  they 
would  end  with  Tieck's  Genoveva,  that  even  if  the  murder  of  Caesar  and 
the  glorification  of  revolution  were  not  of  themselves  sufiicient  to  exclude 
the  play  from  a  royal  theatre,  he  would  oppose  its  acceptance  on  the  grounds 
that  the  production  would  cost  a  good  deal  of  money,  and  obviously  never 
could  find  favor  with  a  public  accustomed  to  plays  in  which  there  was 
at  least  a  coherent  plot.  The  directors,  accordingly,  declined  the  trans- 
lation "with  regrets,"  since,  "although  they  acknowledge  its  excellence, 
they  do  not  deem  it  appropriate  for  presentation  at  the  Roj'-al  Theatre." 
Foersom,  however,  was  given  fiit}''  rigsdaler  for  his  pains. ^ 

He  was  too  brave  a  soul  to  give  up  so  easily  as  that.  Rahbek  gained 
a  certain  degree  of  publicity  for  the  translation  by  publishing  parts  of  it 
in  Minerva.  But  in  the  meantim^e  another  and  more  powerful  influence 
had  come  to  his  aid.    Oehlenschlaeger  in  those  years  was  writing  his  most 

1  Cf.  p.  53. 

*  Kong  Lear.  Et  Sorgespil  i  5  Optog.  Oversat  af  Hans  Wilhelm  Riber  efter  Nahum  Tates  Omarbei  - 
delse  som  spilles  paa  de  kongelige  Skuepladse  i  London.    Kiobenhavn.     1794. 

*  Shakespeareana  i  Danmark.    Loc.  cil. 

*  Nikolai  Bogb,  Museum  2:301.     1895. 

Overskou,  Den  danske  Skueplads.  Fjerde  Deel:  276  S.  Overskou's  work  is  an  amazingly  rich 
storehouse  of  information,  and  I  shall  draw  upon  it  freely,  often  without  giving  specific  credit. 


SHAKESPEARE   ON   THE   DANISH  STAGE  85 

enduring  work.  He  felt  strongly  that  the  chief  reason  his  tragedies  were 
not  adequately  performed  or  intelligently  received  was  that  they  stood 
isolated  in  the  repertoire,  and  he  pleaded  with  the  directors  that  if  the  thea- 
tre and  he  were  to  derive  honor  and  profit  from  his  plays,  a  little  select 
repertoire  of  tragedies  must  be  built  up  "in  which  the  actors  would  find 
opportunity  for  the  unfolding  of  their  powers,  and  the  public  a  means 
of  training  in  the  right  appreciation  of  great  tragedy."  As  the  foundation 
of  this  repertoire  he  preferred  Shakespeare  to  Schiller,  "who,  however 
excellent  he  may  be,  might  easily,  if  he  were  well  translated,  captivate 
the  public  by  his  lyric  and  declamatory,  occasionally  epigrammatic,  style, 
and  thereby  destroy  their  receptivity  to  the  conceits,  the  daring,  the 
colossal  in  the  delineation  of  human  character,  in  which  Shakespeare 
is  unsurpassed."^  As  a  result  of  Oehlenschlseger's  insistence,  the  directors 
were  prevailed  upon  to  try  one  of  Shakespeare's  tragedies.  But  which 
should  it  be?  Oehlenschl^ger  and  Foersom  agreed  that  Romeo  and  Juliet 
would  be  the  most  suitable,  but  the  plot  had  been  used  so  recently  in  a 
ballet  that  it  seemed  out  of  the  question.  Holstein,  a  member  of  the  direc- 
torate, shared  Kierulf's  objection  to  Julius  Caesar,  which  ruled  that  out; 
no  adequate  cast  for  King  Lear  could  be  found.  There  remained,  accord- 
ingly, only  Hamlet.  Strange  to  say,  Rahbek  objected  even  to  that.  He 
feared  that  the  melancholy  Dane  was  much  too  subtle  and  introspective 
for  the  common  run  of  playgoers,  that  the  experiment  might  therefore 
fail,  and  prejudice  the  public  against  other  tragedies  of  Shakespeare. 
Nevertheless,  Hamlet  was  decided  upon.  The  decision  was  perhaps  due 
in  part  to  a  feeling  that  since  the  story  was  remotely  from  Saxo,  and  the 
scene,  Denmark,  the  play  might  make  some  sort  of  patriotic  appeal;  but 
a  better  reason  was  the  instinctive  confidence  in  Foersom's  ability  to  inter- 
pret the  title  role,  on  which,  as  everyone  reaHzed,  the  outcome  depended. 

After  a  good  many  vexatious  delays,  Hamlet  was  at  last  performed, 
for  the  first  time,  on  May  12,  1813.  Foersom  scored  the  great  triumph 
of  his  life.  Everyone  knows  Pram's  enthusiastic  outbirrst  at  the  end  of 
the  third  act:  "Det  er  dog  en  magelos  Fornoielse  at  sec  den  herlige  Foer- 
som i  Aften.  Alt  hvad  der  er  dygtigt  i  Karlen,  baade  Ondt  og  Godt,  er 
ligesom  forklaret  ved  at  have  faaet  shakespearesk  Udtryk.  Men  han  braen- 
der  ogsaa  ud  af  lutter  Geist!  Spiller  han  Hamlet  fem  Gauge  i  een  Vinter, 
er  han  Pinedod  Aske  inden  han  seer  Vaar."^ 

The  part,  indeed,  might  have  been  written  for  Foersom,  with  his 
delicate  and  sensitive  temper,  his  reflectiveness  and  deep  spirituality. 
But  he  could  not  single-handed  carry  a  tragedy  so  complex  as  Hamlet, 
and  the  support  seems  to  have  been  rather  vmcomprehending.  The  first 
experiment  with  Shakespeare  was,  on  the  whole,  a  faihire.     Hamlet  was 

'  Overskou,  op.  cit.  4:277. 
«  Bogh,  loc.  cil.  p.  259. 


S6  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

given  only  once  again  that  season,  May  22;  and  during  the  short  remainder 
of  Foersom's  life,  only  six  times.  Ten  years  afterwards,  on  September  1, 
1826.  it  was  revived  with  M.  P.  Nielsen  as  Hamlet,  and  kept  its  place 
intermittently  on  the  playbills  through  the  next  three  seasons,  v,dth  a 
total  of  eight  performances.  It  was  then  abandoned  for  twenty-two  years, 
until  Frederick  Hoedt  brought  it  out  again  at  his  memorable  debut  on  the 
evening  of  November  1,  1851.'''    And  that  is  another  story. 

Hoedt  had  theories  of  his  own  about  the  stage  and  about  dramatic 
art.  Alore  than  that  he  had  a  program — to  drive  from  the  theatre  all 
the  false  theatricalness  and  hollow  declamation  which  still  held  swa}^  on 
Kongens  Nytorv.  He  did  not  go  on  the  stage  to  make  a  living — ^his  private 
means  were  very  comfortable — but  to  promulgate  definite  theories  of 
dramatic  art,  and  to  make  those  theories  prevail. 

He  had  given  several  interpretive  readings  from  Hamlet,  and  they 
had  created  a  good  deal  of  interest;  he  was  a  university  man  in  a  country 
in  which  an  academic  degree  carried  with  it  social  distinction;  he  was  a 
lion  of  society,  and  a  poet  and  philosopher  as  well.  Small  wonder,  there- 
fore, that  the  news  of  his  debut  at  the  theatre  aroused  a  mild  sensation. 
In  the  early  stunmer  of  1851,  soon  after  the  close  of  the  season,  Hoedt 
applied  to  the  director,  J.  L.  Heiberg,  for  an  engagement,  announcing 
at  the  same  time  that  he  wished  to  make  his  first  appearance  in  Hamlet. 
Heiberg,  if  we  may  believe  his  wife,  was  greatly  interested,  and  at  once 
consented.  Shortly  thereafter  Hoedt  submitted  his  cutting,  although 
Heiberg  himself  had  taken  the  trouble  to  make  one.  It  is  not  safe  to  follow 
Fru  Heiberg  blindly  here;  but  according  to  her  story,  Hoedt  proposed 
cutting  the  opening  scene  on  the  ramparts  and  beginning  the  play  with 
the  scene  at  court.  He  would  also  cut  the  great  scene  in  Act  III  in  which 
the  king  is  discovered  at  his  prayers.  Both  changes  Heiberg  very  properly 
rejected.^ 

At  all  events,  Hoedt  made  his  debut.  Never  in  the  history  of  the  thea- 
tre had  there  been  such  a  demand  for  seats.  The  house  was  crowded  to 
the  roof,  everyone  in  tense  expectancy  awaiting  the  entrance  of  the  new, 
widely-heralded  Hamlet.  And  their  high  expectations  were  not  disap- 
pointed. Hoedt's  performance  was  a  consummate  work  of  art.  Contem- 
porary evidence  leaves  no  doubt  on  that  score.  Overskou,  who  hated 
him,  calls  it  "et  virkeligt  Kunstverk,''  and  Fru  Heiberg,  who  shared  his 
feelings,  and  whose  Ophelia,  moreover,  had  been  completely  overshadowed, 
is  forced  to  agree.  Reviews  in  the  public  press  confirm  this  estimate. 
FcBdrelandet^  writes  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  imagine  anything  finer 

'  A  record  of  the  performances  of  Shakespeare's  plays  in  Denmark  will  be  found  in  the  appendi.'c. 
'  Johanne  Louise  Heiberg,  Et  Liv  gjenoplevct  i  Erindringer.    Ved.  A.  D.  Jorgenson.    3:69  fif.    Kjoben- 
havn.     1891. 

•  November  20.  1851. 


SHAKESPEARE   ON   THE   DANISH  STAGE  87 

than  Hoedt's  rendering  of  the  soliloquies.  Berlingske  Tidende^^  is  fairly 
lyric.  This  was  one  of  the  occasions  when  the  player  was  of  greater  interest 
than  the  play;  people  came  to  see  Hoedt  rather  than  Hamlet.  He  proved 
equal  to  the  opportunity.  He  possesses,  says  the  reviewer,  neither  an  im- 
pressive stage  presence  nor  a  good  voice,  but  he  does  have  a  marvelous 
power  of  visualizing  the  character  for  the  spectator.  His  acting  in  the  play 
scene  was  so  nearly  perfect  that  criticism  is  impossible.  Morgenbladet^^ 
writes  that  there  is  no  occasion  to  unsay  any  of  the  fine  things  that  have 
been  said  about  Hoedt's  Hamlet,  but,  with  a  naivete  startling  at  so  late 
a  day  goes  on  to  declare,  "the  play  leaves  much  to  be  desired."  Hamlet 
speaks  of  theatres  and  caviar,  both  unknown  in  Denmark  in  his  time, 
and  all  the  personages  are  so  well  up  in  Christian  doctrine,  that  they 
could  pass  a  "seminarist"  (elementary  school  teacher's)  examination 
in  it  at  any  time.  In  fact,  the  play  is  so  bad  that  the  only  way  to  improve 
it  is  to  write  a  new  one,  using  the  same  materials,  as  Oehlenschlasger  has 
done  in  Amleth,  where  he  has  given  with  simple  fidelity  a  truthful  picture 
of  the  age.  Hamlet  can  not  please  an  audience  not  totally  ignorant  of 
history.  Criticism  like  this  savors  of  1751,  rather  than  1851.  Fortu- 
nately, it  is  quite  isolated. 

In  the  chorus  of  praise  which  greeted  Hoedt  at  his  first  appearance, 
there  is  one  discordant  voice — that  of  Meyer  Goldschmidt  in  Nord  og 
SydP  After  sharply  criticising  certain  details  of  Hoedt's  performance, 
he  proceeds : 

Hr.  Hoedt  has  many  excellent  qualities  .  .  .  ,  but  he  has  not  proved  himself 
in  Hamlet,  a  great  tragedian.  If  he  had,  as  Heiberg  once  said  modestly  of  himself, 
as  much  genius  as  taste,  he  would  be  a  great  artist.  Possibly  he  will  prove  to  be  better 
in  less  important  r61es;  possibly,  too,  he  would  be  better  in  major  parts  if  he  had  not 
been  heralded  abroad  as  a  consummate  artist  whose  development  is  already  complete. 
But   unquestionably   he   will   always   be   correct,  polished,    restrained,    respectable. 

Goldschmidt's  judgment  is  certainly  not  fair.  Hoedt's  contempo- 
raries testify  that  he  was  vastly  more  than  "correct,  polished,  restrained, 
respectable,"  and  those  who  knew  him  in  after  years,  when  he  had  left 
the  stage,  bear  witness  to  the  wonderful  beauty  of  his  interpretive  read- 
ings.^3  It  may  well  be,  however,  that  he  lacked  depth  and  passion.  Bjorn- 
son  thought  him  superficial  and  insincere.^* 

Hoedt's  success,  however,  was  quite  sufficient  to  assure  his  appoint- 
ment as  "kongelig  Skuespiller"  at  a  comparatively  high  salary,  and  all 
seemed  serene,  alike  for  him  and  for  the  theatre.    But  the  Royal  Theatre 

>»  November  15,  1851. 

»  November  15,  1851. 

"7:324.     October-December,  1851. 

»  Edvard  Brandes,  Dansk  Skuespilkunsl  p.  56.     Kjobenhavn.      1880. 

"Cf.  Gro.  Till,  1:4-5;  220. 


88  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

was  too  small  a  world  for  two  such  men  as  Frederik  Hoedt  and  Johan  Lud- 
N-ig  Heiberg,  particularly  since  both  were  blessed  with  theories  and  deter- 
mined to  give  them  effect.  The  collision  was  not  long  in  coming.  In  the 
summer  of  1852,  Hoedt  proposed  to  the  director  that  Richard  III  be 
placed  in  the  repertory  for  the  following  season,  with  Hoedt,  of  course, 
as  Richard.  Heiberg  peremptorily  refused  in  a  letter  which  as  Dr.  Edvard 
Brandes  says,^^  does  him  little  honor,  but  which  does  throw  a  good  deal  of 
Hght  on  his  attitude  toward  Shakespeare: 

The  gloomy  atmosphere  of  the  plaj^  is  distinctly  foreign  to  the  temperament 
and  character  of  the  Danish  people,  who,  even  in  tragedy,  demand  a  lighter  tone. 
Preciselj-  in  proportion  as  the  national  theatre  is  regarded  as  an  institution  for  the 
esthetic  education  of  the  people  is  it  important  that  in  this,  as  in  all  education,  the 
point  of  departure  be  the  native  gifts  and  talents  of  the  people,  and  that  no  attempt 
be  made  to  graft  upon  it  anything  foreign  which  is  incompatible  with  their  natural 
sympathies.  If,  therefore,  Richard  III  were  to  be  produced,  I  fear  that,  after  the 
first  curiosity  had  been  satisfied,  I  should  be  charged  with  a  failure  to  recognize  the 
national  mission  of  the  theatre,  and,  what  is  more,  I  should  feel  conscious  in  that 
case,  that  I  could  not  meet  or  disprove  the  charge.  That  this  tragedy  is  played  in 
England,  where  it  is  probably  in  harmony  with  the  hypochondriac  character  of  the 
English  people,  is  no  argument  for  us;  quite  as  little  the  fact  that  it  is  given  in 
Germany,  since  Germany,  having  no  genuine  dramatic  literature  of  its  own,  but 
determined  to  have  a  stage,  is  forced  to  found  one  on  loans  from  foreign  literatures. 
In  Denmark,  however,  where  there  is  and  can  be  a  national  theatre,  since  there  exists 
this  prerequisite  national  dramatic  literature,  a  good  deal  may  be  lost  by  an  un- 
fortunate selection  of  foreign  plays.  Here  in  Denmark  the  tragedy  of  Oehlen- 
schlaeger,  despite  all  its  faults,  has  struck  the  national  chord  and  appealed  to  national 
feelings,  and  I  doubt  very  much  if  we  shoidd  ever  accustom  ourselves  to  seeing  Mel- 
pomene's dagger  transformed  into  a  butcher  knife. ^^ 

A  second,  and  undeniably  much  sounder,  reason  for  declining  Richard 
III  Heiberg  finds  in  the  fact  that  since  it  is  onl}^  a  fragment  of  a  very  long 
cycle  of  chronicle  plays  dealing  with  a  remote  period  of  English  history, 
the  Danish  public  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  have  the  historical  knowl- 
edge necessary  to  understand  and  appreciate  it. 

Nor  was  this  all.  Heiberg  refused  Hoedt  permission  to  appear  as 
Marinelli  in  Emilia  Galotti  and  as  Figaro  in  Beaimiarchais'  comedy.  He 
insisted,  in  short,  that  Hoedt's  business  was  to  play  what  he  was  told  to 
play,  that  the  player  existed  for  the  theatre,  and  not  the  other  way  around. 
Of  coiu-se  Hoedt  resigned;  and  he  did  so  in  a  caustic  letter  in  which  he 
did  not  hesitate  to  say  what  he  thought  of  Heiberg's  judgment  on  Shake- 
speare : 

Such  a  play  no  director  has  the  right  to  judge,  for  the  world  has  already  judged, 
without  awaiting  a  reexamination.   .    .    .    Just  as  Luther  is  not  merely  a  German 

"  Op.  cit.  p.  49. 

8  First  published  by  Heiberg  himself  in  Berlingske  Tidende  for  December  2,  1852.  Reprinted  in  Hei- 
berg's Prosaiske  Skrifter  8:394-99;  H.  Christensen,  Del  kongelige  Theater  1852-1859  pp.  61  fif.;  Fru  Heiberg's 
Erindringer  3:12iS. 


SHAKESPEARE   ON    THE   DANISH  STAGE  89 

theologian,  but  the  fountainhead  of  protestant  theology,  Mozart  not  merely  a  German 
or  Italian  composer,  but  an  Ideal  in  music,  so  Shakespeare  is  not  merely  an  English 
poet,  but  the  teacher  and  master  of  the  modern  protestant  drama. *^ 

We  recognize  here,  of  course,  the  theory  so  elaborately  set  forth  in  On 
the  Beautiful. 

An  explosion  was  averted  for  the  moment  through  the  intervention, 
it  is  said,  of  certain  persons  in  very  high  station,  and  Hoedt  remained. 
Hamlet  was  placed  on  the  repertory  again  for  the  season  of  1853,  but  very 
great  changes  had  to  be  made  in  the  cast.  Nielsen,  who  had  played  the 
Ghost  so  successfully  in  1851,  had  left  the  theatre  in  anger;  his  wife,  next 
to  Fru  Heiberg  herself,  the  leading  actress  on  the  stage,  was  ill.  Heiberg 
gave  Nielsen's  role  to  an  inconspicuous  actor  namied  Ferslev,  entirely  incom- 
petent, according  to  Edvard  Brarldes,  with  a  poor  voice  and  no  ability 
in  reading  Shakespeare's  blank  verse.  Fru  Nielsen's  part  as  the  queen 
was  assigned  to  a  rather  mediocre  young  actress,  Froken  MoUer.  With 
such  a  cast  Hoedt  refused  to  play.  He  asked  Heiberg  to  postpone  the 
performance  until  Fru  Nielsen's  return.  Heiberg  refused,  and  appointed 
the  rehearsals.  Then,  as  Overskou  solemnly  says,  "the  impossible  hap- 
pened"— Hoedt  cut  the  rehearsal.  The  director  made  another  appoint- 
ment for  the  following  day ;  Hoedt  again  stayed  away.  His  friend  Michael 
Wiehe,  to  whom  the  situation  was  becoming  just  a  bit  ludicrous,  began 
cutting  up,  and  Overskou,  who  was  in  charge,  horror-stricken  at  this  pro- 
fanation of  the  sacred  precincts  of  the  Royal  Theatre,  cut  short  the  re- 
hearsal and  reported  to  Heiberg.  The  latter,  of  course,  cotild  brook  no  such 
breach  of  discipline,  and  by  exerting  every  ounce  of  his  authority,  almost 
forced  the  Minister  of  Education  and  Public  Worship,  under  whose  juris- 
diction the  theatre  comes,  to  dismiss  Hoedt  incontinently.  Three  years 
later  Heiberg  resigned  his  office,  and  the  new  administration  prevailed 
upon  Hoedt  to  return.  But  his  stay  was  short.  The  public,  which,  on  the 
whole,  had  taken  his  part  in  the  controversy,  had  become  obsessed  with 
the  idea  that  he  was  responsible  for  the  retirement  of  their  idol,  Fru  Heiberg. 
It  was  utterly  false,  but  it  did  the  work.  The  audiences  were  at  first  cool, 
then  openly  hostile,  and  one  night  they  hissed  him  off  the  stage.  Hoedt's 
career  as  an  actor  was  over.  For  a  time  he  served  as  stage  manager,  then 
as  instructor  at  the  dramatic  school,  maintaining  in  this  way  a  loose  con- 
nection with  the  theatre.  But  more  and  more  he  withdrew  from  public 
notice,  being  heard  from  now  and  then  when  he  assisted  in  staging  a  new 
play  at  the  Royal  Theatre  or  at  the  unpretentious  Folkethcatrct,  situated 
directly  across  the  street  from  his  house.  We  shall  follow  him  no  further — 
an  actor  of  vision  and  serious  purpose,  even  if  no  genius  of  the  first  order — 
whose  career  interests  us  of  the  English-speaking  world  because  it  is  bound 

"  Christensen,  loc.  cit.  p.  73.    Originally  published  by  Dr.  Edvard  Brandes  in  Del  Nillende  Aarhundrtde 
ior  April.  1875. 


90  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

up  SO  intimately. with  the  production  of  Shakespeare's  plays.  Perhaps, 
too,  even  more  than  Foersom,  he  suggests  Hamlet,  appointed  to  a  mission 
he  had  not  the  strength  and  energy  to  accomplish.^^ 

Since  Hoedt's  day,  Hamlet  has  been  played,  among  others,  by  Nicolai 
Neiiendam  and  Emil  Poulsen,  and  Ophelia  by  Fru  Hennings.  During  the 
century  following  its  premier,  the  play  has  been  given  at  the  Royal  Theatre 
eighty  times.  In  addition  it  has  been  played  nineteen  times  at  Dagmar 
Theatret,  the  most  important  of  the  private  theatres  in  Copenhagen. 

Three  years  after  Foersom's  debut  in  Hamlet,  the  theatre  opened 
the  season  with  King  Lear  (September  2,  1816).  Dr.  Ryge  played  the 
king,  and  Foersom  himself,  Edgar.  It  was  a  flat  failure.  Overskou  attri- 
butes the  lack  of  success  to  the  inability  of  the  audience  to  grasp  the 
meaning  of  the  play;^^  accustomed  to  the  rhetoric  of  Oehlenschlasger  and 
Kotzebue,  it  seemed  to  them  nothing  more  than  one  horror  piled  on  another. 
The  failure  of  the  public  to  understand  was  not  due  altogether  to  perverted 
taste,  but  to  inadequate  interpretation  on  the  part  of  the  cast.  Ryge  was 
superb  in  the  first  scene,  but  he  failed  utterly  to  bring  out  the  pathos  of  the 
king's  fate  after  his  daughters  have  tiuned  him  away;  and  Foersom  was 
physically  so  weak  that  he  merely  suggested  the  character  of  Edgar.  Ryge's 
state  of  mind  is  weU  illustrated  by  a  remark  which  Overskou  reports: 
"The  part  is  good  enough;  I  realize,  too,  that  if  they  mean  to  give  the  piece, 
I  must  play  it ;  but  it  goes  against  my  grain  to  play  mad  kings  who  do  not 
turn  on  their  enemies." 

"When  Lear  was  revived  in  1851,  with  Nielsen  as  Lear  and  Michael 
Wiehe  as  Edgar,  it  had  an  altogether  different  effect.  The  great  artists 
carried  it  through  twenty  performances  from  January  29,  1851,  to  No- 
vember 8,  1860.  FcBdrelandef^  hailed  the  performance  with  enthusiasm. 
"The  theatre  is  entitled  to  oiir  gratitude  for  putting  on  this  great  tragedy, 
and  Hr.  Nielsen  for  the  painstaking  study  he  has  obviously  devoted  to 
his  part."  Berlingske  Tidende^^  points  out  that  Lear  is  a  tragedy  which 
so  severely  taxes  the  resources  of  a  theatre  that  it  is  rarely  played  in  Ger- 
many, and  almost  never  in  England.  It  is  not  astonishing  therefore  that 
the  performance  here  was  not  in  every  respect  ideal.  But  Nielsen's  Lear 
was  a  revelation,  by  all  odds  the  best  thing  he  has  done.  His  playing  in 
the  scene  on  the  heath  and  in  the  last  scene,  where  he  appears  bearing 
Cordelia's  body,  were  bits  of  acting  worthy  of  any  theatre  in  the  world. 
Wiehe  as  Edgar  and  Mad.  Hoist  as  Cordelia  were  excellent,  and  Hoist 
as  Kent  and  Phister  as  the  Fool  were  almost  as  good. 

>8  For  accounts,  from  all  angles,  of  the  Heiberg-Hoedt  controversy,  consult:  Overskou,  Den  danske 
Skjieplads,  6:12  f[;  Overskou,  Oplysninger  om  Theaterforhold  i  1849-1858,  Kjobenhavn,  1858;  Christensen, 
op.  cit.;  Johanne  Louise  Heiberg,  op.  cit.    3:68  ff.,  123  fif.,  164  ff.;  Edvard  Brandes,  op.  cit.  pp.  35-60. 

>«Cf.     Nyeste  Skilderier  af  Kjobenhavn.     25:1203  £f.     1816. 

20  January  30.  1851. 

s>  January  31,  1851. 


SHAKESPEARE   ON   THE  DANISH  STAGE  91 

After  1860,  Lear  was  not  played  again  for  more  than  a  generation. 
At  length,  on  November  22,  1901,  Dr.  Mantzius  brought  it  out  once  more 
on  a  specially  designed  Shakespearean  stage.  "It  was  not  quite  Shake- 
speare's elemental  tragedy  of  storm  and  passion,"  says  Vilhelm  Ander- 
sen in  Tilskueren,  "but  it  was  a  fine  piece  of  work,"  with  Dr.  Mantzius 
as  the  unifying  force.  "At  spille  en  saadan  Elementar-Tragedie  lyldcedes 
natiirligvis  ikke  helt.  Men  hvor  det  bristede  var  det  oiensynlig  paa  Evne, 
ikke  paa  Arbeide.  Stemningen  var  rigtignok  fra  Kjobenhavn,  men  Blikket 
var  virkelig  fra  Shakespeare. "^^ 

Macbeth,  in  Foersom's  adaptation  of  Schiller's  version,23  was  played 
for  the  first  time  on  November  15,  1817,  at  a  benefit  performance  for 
Foersom's  widow.  It  was  not  successful.  Dr.  Ryge,  as  usual  rendered 
the  kingly  and  regal  in  Macbeth,  and  his  terror  and  rage,  superbly,  but 
the  subtle  passions  of  the  first  part,  in  which  the  thought  of  the  murder 
takes  shape  in  his  mind,  lacked  discernment  and  convincingness. 

I  have  deemed  it  worth  while  in  this  connection  to  compare  Foer- 
som's adaptation  with  Schiller's  and  with  the  original.  It  follows  Schiller 
closely.  The  stage  arrangement,  the  business,  and  the  sequence  of  scenes 
are  Schiller's.  In  the  fourth  act,  for  instance,  where,  to  secure  greater 
continuity  of  action,  Schiller  manipulated  scenes  with  sovereign  freedom, 
Foersom  follows  him  in  every  detail.  So  also  in  Act  V,  where  the  changes 
are  even  more  radical.  Schiller's  famous  porter  scene  and  his  denatiured 
witch  scenes  have  been  variously  treated.  The  first  witch  scene  in  Schil- 
ler, Foersom  has  stricken  out,  and  substituted  Shakespeare's.  Only  one 
line: 

Anden  Hex:  Samles  efter  Svsrdstorms  Stunden 

is  from  the  German.  Foersom  has  eliminated  also  Schiller's  second  witch 
scene,  up  to  the  point  at  which  Macbeth  and  Banquo  enter,  after  which 
both  follow  Shakespeare  with  unimportant  changes.  The  third  witch 
scene — the  Hecate  episode,  which  Schiller  takes  over  from  the  original, 
Foersom  omits.  The  fotirth,  that  in  which  Macbeth  comes  to  inquire 
into  the  future,  is  in  both  Danish  and  German  essentially  Shakespeare's, 
except  that  Hecate  does  not  appear,  Foersom  again  eliminates  her  entirely, 
and  in  Schiller  she  has  become  an  invisible  presence.  Foersom,  then, 
had  the  tact  and  judgment  to  reject  Schiller's  transformation  of  the  witches, 
but  he  fell  a  victim  to  the  exquisite  lyric  verse  of  his  porter  scene,  for  this 
he  has  taken  over  bodily,  adding,  however,  five  lines  in  which  something 
of  Shakespeare's  conception  shines  through : 

Saa,  siig  mig  nu  engang,  vaager  ikke 

en  Konges  Die  for  hans  Folk;  nu  tror  jeg 

"  Theater  Rev y  for  1901.     1902. 

»  William  Shakespeare:     Macbeth.     Tragedie  i  5  Acter  efter  Shakespeare  og  Schiller  bcarbeidet  til 
Opferelse  paa  den  danske  Skueplads  ved  Peter  Thun  Foersom.    Kiobenhavn.     1816. 


92  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

at  Kongen  vel  end  ei  er  rigtig  livlig 
men  gnider  sig  vel  lidt  i  Oinene 
saa  efter  Gaarsdagsviren. 

Foersom's  Macbeth,  accordingly,  is  a  free  translation  from  Schiller, 
influenced  at  certain  points  by  the  original.  I  may  mention  in  passing  one 
curious  instance  of  the  confusion  to  which  this  double  source  occasionally 
leads.  In  the  porter  scene  (F.  II,  5)  Foersom  has,  "Enter  Macduff  and 
Ross"  [as  in  Schiller].  The  scene  now  follows  Schiller  to  the  point  where 
IMacduff  goes  to  call  the  king.  At  this  juncture,  however,  Foersom  has 
looked  over  on  his  copy  of  Shakespeare,  for  in  the  ensuing  dialogue,  the 
speeches  that  should  go  to  Ross  are  assigned,  as  in  Shakespeare,  to 
Lenox — who  does  not  appear  at  all ! 

Macbeth  continued  to  be  played  in  the  Schiller-Foersom  adaptation 
down  to  1860.  And  it  was  decidedly  popular,  being  given  no  less  than 
thirty-eight  times.  On  the  occasion  of  two  performances  in  1827,  Johan 
Ludvig  Heiberg  wrote  in  his  Flyvende  Post  a  review  which,  better  than 
anything  else,  shows  what  cultivated  playgoers  of  the  time  thought  of  it.^* 
He  condemns  Schiller  for  having  altered  the  witches  into  goddesses  of 
fate,  like  the  Erinys  of  Greek  tragedy,  instead  of  leaving  them  as  they 
are,  personifications  of  those  elemental  forces  from  which  no  m-an  ever 
quite  emancipates  himself.  "But  in  their  vulgar  realism,  as  they  appear 
in  Shakespeare,  with  all  their  coarse  and  repulsive  stories,  .  .  .  they 
wotild  certainly  be  ridiculous  and  mar  the  effect  of  the  play.  Foersom, 
therefore,  [who,  it  will  be  remembered,  cuts  the  second  witch  scene]  is 
to  be  praised  for  giving  them  a  vague,  indefinite  character,  of  which  one  can 
make  what  he  will."  Further  on  he  praises  Foersom's  judicious  cuttings, 
suggesting,  however,  that  he  might  well  have  cut  more,  notably  the  ridic- 
ulous dialogue  between  Malcolm  and  Macduff  (IV,  5),  "a  veritable  mar- 
ionet  scene,  one  that  could  not  possibly  have  taken  place  between  real, 
living  characters." 

This  criticism,  and  one  which  Heiberg  passed,  not  unjustly,  on  much 
of  Foersom's  metre,  was  answered  with  greater  zeal  than  knowledge  by 
a  writer  in  Kj bhenhavnsposten  over  the  signature  Inlmmanus }^  Heiberg, 
in  his  reply,  of  course  had  no  difficulty  in  burying  his  adversary''  under 
a  storm  of  raillery,^^  particularly  as  he  singles  out  Foersom's  lame  lines ; 
but  he  has  no  need  thereafter  to  assure  us,  as  he  did  in  a  review  of  Hamlet, 
that  he  is  no  blind  admirer  of  Shakespeare. 2"  His  obliquity  of  vision  and 
the  fatal  limitations  of  his  sympathy  are  never  more  glaring  than  when 
he  deals  v/ith  a  play  of  Shakespeare's. 

M  Three  articles.    January  19,  22,  and  26,  1827.     Reprinted  in  Prosaiske  Skrifler  7:3  ff. 

M  February  13,  17,  1827. 

^  Kjobenhavns  Flyvende  Post,  February  23  and  26,  1827.     Reprinted  in  Prosaiske  Skrifler  7:18  ff. 

"  Kjdbenhavns  Flyvende  Post,  March  30,  April  2,  1827.    Reprinted  in  Prosaiske  Skrifler  7:24  ff. 


SHAKESPEARE   ON   THE  DANISH  STAGE  93 

After  the  season  of  1859-60,  Macbeth  disappeared  from  the  playbills 
for  more  than  thirty  years.  On  January  21,  1893,  it  made  its  reappear- 
ance on  the  stage  in  a  new  cutting  based  on  Lembcke,  with  Emil  Poul- 
sen  as  an  unforgetable  Macbeth. 

A  full  decade  after  the  premier  of  Macbeth,  the  theatre  ventured  upon 
its  fourth  Shakespearean  production,  The  Merchant  of  Venice,  in  a  new 
translation  by  A.  E.  Boye  (and  K.  L.  Rahbek).^^  With  an  excellent  cast 
centered  about  Dr.  Ryge  as  Shylock  the  play  was  at  least  adequately  done. 
Overskou  reports,  too,  that  it  was  well  received.  The  fact  that  it  was 
given  only  four  tim.es  and  then  dropped  for  thirty-eight  years,  together 
with  the  tone  of  svich  reviews  as  have  come  to  my  notice,  might  point  to 
a  different  conclusion. 

Nyeste  Skilderier  aj  Kjobenhavn^^  says  frankly  that  whatever  suc- 
cess Shakespeare's  plays  have  had  in  Denmark  is  due  rather  to  his  fame 
than  to  any  pleasure  in  the  performance.  He  regrets,  therefore,  that 
The  Merchant  of  Venice  should  be  one  of  the  first  offered  to  the  Danish 
public.  The  play  is  indeed  borne  by  Shakespeare's  mighty  spirit,  but  the 
trial  is  cannibalistic  and  Shylock  a  monster.  But,  he  adds,  "the  blind 
idolatry  of  Shakespeare  covers  every  sin."  J.  L.  Heiberg  in  the  Flyvende 
Post^^  concealed  his  impatience  under  a  cloak  of  light  mockery  of  the 
"critical  playgoer."  The  Merchant  of  Venice  is  a  piece  to  tickle  the  mob, 
but  to  your  discriminating  spectator,  it  must  be  a  strange  thing.  For 
it  is  neither  comedy  nor  tragedy  but  an  impossible  neither-one-nor-the- 
other.  That,  to  begin  with,  is  disconcerting.  But  there  is  further  the  fact 
that  the  play  is  strangely  impersonal,  bearing  upon  it  no  sign  of  the  poet's 
zeal  and  passion,  that  it  is  loaded  down  with  an  inconsequential  subplot 
and  a  totally  superfluous  fifth  act.  The  critical  playgoer  gives  it  up. 
Heiberg  then  wittily  outlines  a  scheme  for  recasting  the  puzzling  play  into 
a  domestic  melodrama  of  which  such  a  spectator  would  whole-heartedly 
approve.  All  this  is  light  mockery,  but  one  has  an  uneasy  suspicion  that 
Heiberg  sympathizes  with  the  object  of  his  satire,  and  this  suspicion  be- 
comes a  certainty  before  the  close  of  the  essay:  "Although  in  the  pre- 
ceding I  have  allowed  myself  a  little  innocent  raillery  at  the  expense  of 
the  public,  I  fully  recognize  the  hidden  good  sense  in  even  the  most  self- 
contradictory  demands.  For  the  reason  that  great  masterpieces  do  not 
please, — although,  since  they  are  known  to  be  great  masterpieces,  they  are 
greeted  with  dutiful  applause, — docs  not  lie  in  a  perverted  love  of  poor 

28  The  title  paye,  however,  reads:  Kjobmanden  i  Vencdig.  Ly.'itspil  i  5  AcIlt.  Fordansket  til  Skucp- 
ladsens  Brug  ved  K.  L.  Rahbek  (og  Ad.  E.  Boye).  Kjdbenhavn.  1827.  As  to  Rahbck's  and  Doyc's  shares, 
see  Nik.  Bogh,  art.    Ad.  E.  Boye,  in  Dansk  Biografisk  Leksikon. 

2»  May'l,  10,  1828. 

30  May  28,  1828.     Reprinted  in  Prosaiske  Skrifkr  7:157  fl. 


94  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

work,  but  in  a  feeling  that  good  work  should  find  new  forms,  whereby 
it  may  become  flesh  of  our  flesh  and  bone  of  our  bone."^^ 

Heiberg  is  himself  this  "cultivated  playgoer"  of  whom  he  speaks 
with  S3^npathetic  irony.  His  system  of  esthetics,  a  basic  principle  of 
which  is  that  dramatic  forms  should  be  kept  distinct,  made  him  incapa- 
ble of  sympathizing  with  Shakespeare  or  of  really  understanding  him. 
Fru  Heiberg  says,  indeed,  that  he  called  7/ain/^/ the  greatest  of  tragedies; 
if  he  did,  we  may  be  certain  that  in  his  heart  he  made  a  good  many  qual- 
ifications. When  he  reviewed  a  production  of  Hamlet  in  1827,  he  confined 
himself  almost  altogether  to  the  character,  and  said  little  about  the  play. 

Upon  The  Merchant  of  Venice  followed,  at  short  intervals,  Romeo 
and  Juliet  (September  2,  1828)  and  The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor  (March 
9,  1829).  Romeo  and  Jtdiet  was  played  in  a  discreet  cutting  of  Foersom, 
made  by  A.  E.  Boye.^^  If  the  premier  were  interesting  for  no  other  reason, 
it  would  be  notable  in  the  history  of  the  Danish  stage  for  the  debut  of 
Jomfru  Johanne  Louise  Patges  (Fru  Heiberg),  most  famous  of  all  Dan- 
ish actresses,  as  Juliet.  She  was  then  only  sixteen,  a  mere  slip  of  a  girl, 
but  she  revealed  unmistakably  her  marv^elous  powers.  Juliet's  youth 
and  innocence  and  simplicity  were  perfectly  done.  One  may  well  believe 
Fru  Heiberg,  however,  when,  years  later,  she  writes  in  her  Memoirs  that 
in  1828  she  played  Juliet  as  a  child  would,  with  no  comprehension  of  the 
subtleties  of  the  role,  without  reflection,  and  almost  without  design.^' 
She  could  not  possibly  have  been  a  perfect  Juliet,  as  Overskou  and  certain 
reviewers  would  have  us  believe.  But  her  success  was  undoubted;  she 
established  herself  as  the  most  promising  of  the  younger  actresses,  and 
began  that  long  series  of  -triumphs  which  makes  her  as  unique  a  figure 
in  the  history  of  the  Danish  stage  as  Mrs.  Siddons  in  that  of  Britain  or 
Charlotte  Cushman  in  that  of  America. 

Twenty  years  later,  on  January  23,  1847,  Fru  Heiberg  played  Juliet 
once  more.  She  was  conscious  of  a  surer  art,  of  finer  discernment,  of  incom- 
parably greater  truth  in  her  interpretation.  In  after  j^ears  she  liked  to 
think  of  her  Juliet  of  1847,  and  in  particidar  of  the  exquisite  essays  of 
Soren  Kirkegaard,  Krisen  og  en  Krise  i  en  Skiiespillerindes  Liv,  to  which 
it  gave  rise.^*  Kirkegaard  points  out  the  folly  of  criticising  on  artistic 
grounds  an  actress  who  is  scarcely  more  than  a  girl.  She  is  spiritually 
as  well  as  physically  immature.  The  great  actress  emerges  only  through 
the  development  and  experience  of  the  years.    But  this  growth  of  power 

'1  Quoted  from  Prosaiske  SkrifUr.  See  preceding  note.  A  much  more  favorable  review  will  be  found 
in  A.  P.  Liunge's  Thealerblad  January  25,  1828. 

'*  Romeo  og  Julie.  Sorgespil  i  5  A  cter.  Indrettet  for  den  danske  Skueplads  (af  Peter  Thun  Foersom  og 
Ad.  E.  Boye).    Kjobenhavn.     1828.    Del  kongelige  Theaters  Repertoire  no.  6. 

"  Et  Liv  gjenoplevet  i  Erindringer  1 :96-98. 

**  Padrelandel  July  24.  25,  26,  27,  1848.  Reprinted  in  SHren  Kirkegaard's  Bladartikler.  Udgivne  af 
Rasmus  Nielsen.    Kjobenhavn.     1857.    pp.  173  flf. 


SHAKESPEARE   ON   THE  DANISH  STAGE  95 

means  a  crisis,  for  the  uncritical  public  worships  at  the  shrine  of  the  young- 
est goddess. 

Romeo  and  Juliet  was  played  for  the  last  time  at  the  Royal  Theatre 
on  April  22.  1874.  It  was  given  at  Dagmartheatret  dm-ing  the  seasons 
of  1899-1900  (fourteen  times)  and  1907-8  (twelve  times).  In  1899-1900 
the  title-roles  were  played  by  Martinius  Nielsen  and  Fru  Augusta  Wiehe. 
The  reviewers  were  mildly  favorable.^^  The  reviews  of  the  performances 
of  1907-8  are  merely  tolerant,  but  Adam  Poulsen  as  Romeo  and  Fru 
Anna  Larsen  as  Juliet  receive  recognition  for  careful,  well  planned,  and 
well  worked  out  interpretation.^^ 

The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor^''  was  a  failure.  The  drastic  humor 
rather  took  the  breath  away  from  polite  Copenhagen,^^  and  Overskou's 
opinion  that  the  play  ought  not  to  have  been  attempted  at  that  time,  since 
it  demands  of  the  spectaitor  a  better  knowledge  of  English  life  than  a  Dan- 
ish audience  in  1830  could  be  expected  to  have,  probably  is  well  founded. 
It  has  never  since  been  given  at  the  Royal  Theatre,  but  in  December,  1899, 
Folketheatret,  one  of  the  popular  houses  in  Copenhagen,  presented  it  in 
a  new  cutting  by  P.  A.  Rosenberg.  The  critics  call  the  performance  noisy 
and  crude  ;^^  but  it  was  a  great  success  none  the  less,  and  ran  for  two  weeks 
(December  26  to  January  9)  to  the  huge  delight  of  the  public. 

Whether  or  not,  as  Arthur  Aumont  suggests,^"  the  failure  of  The  Merry 
Wives  discouraged  the  theatre  from  attempting  another  Shakespearean 
production,  certain  it  is  that  none  was  essayed  for  eighteen  years.  Curious 
enough,  it  was  Heiberg  himself  who  revived  Shakespeare  on  the  stage, 
but  in  a  form  so  garbled  that,  save  for  the  names  of  the  characters  and 
the  general  fable,  there  is  little  of  the  original  left.  On  September  20, 
1847,  accordingly,  Viola^^  (Twelfth  Night),  the  first  of  Sille  Beyer's  egre- 
gious adaptations  of  Shakespeare,  w^as  produced.  Overskou,  naturally, 
in  his  ponderous  "Kanzleisprache"  calls  it, — "en  mcd  megen  Smag  og 
god  Sans  for  theatralsk  Virkning  af  Sille  Beyer  udfort  Bearbeidelse  af  Shake- 
speare's What  You  Will.^'^^  That  the  cutting  was  theatrically  effective, 
may  be  conceded;  that  it  was  done  with  good  taste  is  more  dubious.    The 

"■  Politiken  January  7,  1900. 
Berlingske  Tidende  January  8,  1900. 

>«  See  particularly  an  admirable  review  by  Oskar  V.  Andersen,  Varden  5:486.     1907. 

"  De  Munlre  Koner  i  Windsor.  Et  Lystspil  i  S  Acter.  Oversat  af  Ad.  'E.  Boye.  Med  Anmaerkningcr. 
Kjobenhavn.  1829.  Det  kongelige  Theaters  Repertoire  no.  24.  Boye  also  prepared  a  translation  of  Twelfth 
Night  {IJellig  Tre  Kongcrs  A/ten.  Del  kongelige  Theaters  Repertoire  no.  22.  KjiJbenhavn.  1822).  It  was, 
apparently,  never  used. 

»8  Kjobenhavnsposten  March  10,  13,  18J0. 

"  Berlingske  Tidende  December  27,  1899. 
Politiken  same  date.     The  review  is  by  Edvard,  Brandes. 

*o  William  Shakespeare  paa  den  danske  Skueplads.    Politiken  May  11,  1913. 

«  Viola.  Lystspil  i  3  Acter.  En  Bearbeidelse  af  W.  Shakespeares  Twelfth  Night  dUr  What  Yon  Will. 
ved  Sille  Beyer.    Kjobenhavn.     1850. 

"Op.  cit.  5:779-80. 


96  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

adaptor  has  condensed  the  five  acts  into  three.  This  necessitated,  of  course, 
merciless  cuts,  the  rearrangement  of  scenes  to  obviate  unnecessary  shifts, 
and  the  addition  of  new  hnks  to  hold  the  composite  together.  The  main 
plot  is  preserved,  but  the  IVIalvolio  plot  is  eliminated  altogether,  save 
that  certain  of  Maria's  activities  are  transferred  to  thfe  Sir  Toby-Sir  Andrew- 
Fabian  intrigue,  and  she  now  takes  the  lead  in  gulling  Sir  Andrew.  It  is 
characteristic  of  Sille  Beyer's  method  that  she  thinks  it  necessary  to  inform 
us  expressly  (I,  1)  that  a  package  of  Sebastian's  clothes  has  providentially 
drifted  ashore,  and  later  (II,  2),  better  to  motivate  the  love  story,  that 
Viola  has  already  been  at  court  "several  weeks."  The  fable  has  a  faint 
flavor  of  Shakespeare,  indeed;  it  is  even  fainter  in  the  style.  To  begin 
with,  Froken  Be^^er  has  paraphrased  Shakespeare's  blank  verse  into  sugary 
Danish  pentameters,  and  the  lovely  songs,  as  a  rule,  she  has  done  into 
watery  l3^rics  of  her  own,  either  based  on  Shakespeare,  or  entirely  original. 

This  parody  on  one  of  the  greatest  of  romantic  comedies  was,  as  Over- 
skou  truly  sa3?s,  an  extremely  successful  theatre-piece.  Sustained  by 
Fru  Hciberg's  wonderful  Viola,  it  held  its  own  in  the  repertory  down  to 
IS 69,  with  a  total  of  no  less  than  fifty-two  performances.  In  1892  Twelfth 
Night  was  taken  up  again,  but  in  a  sane  cutting  based  on  Lembcke's  trans- 
lation. The  new  version  has  been  even  more  successful  than  the  first,  thanks 
mainly  to  Olaf  Poulscn's  now  historic  Sir  Tob3^  Edvard  Brandes  in  his 
review  of  the  premier  complained  that  the  lyric  beauty  of  the  play  had 
been  sacrificed.^  And  Vilhelm  Moller  in  Tilskueren  agrees  with  him, 
but  he  can  not  refrain  from  unqualified  admiration  for  this  glorious  Sir 
Toby:  "Nej,  saadan  en  sej  og  but  Drukkenskab,  saadan  en  staedig  Drilsk- 
hed,  saadan  en  aa-gaa-Fanden-i  voldsk  Ligegladhed  der  kom  frem  i  hele 
hans  Legcme  naar  han  dansede.  Det  er  at  skabe  en  historisk  Skikkelse 
paa  Scenen."-"  No  wonder  that  Hellig  Tre  Kongers  Aften  has  been  per- 
formed sixty-five  times,  a  total  for  the  two  versions  of  one  hundred  seven- 
teen.   Only  A  Midsummer  height's  Dream  surpasses  this  record. 

A  whole  series  of  Sille  Be3^er's  "Bearbeidelser"  followed  in  the  train 
of  Viola.  The}^  differ  only  in  the  respect  that  some  are  worse  than  others. 
The  worst  of  all  is  Livet  i  Skoven,^^  an  adaptation  of  As  You  Like  It,  which 
opened  the  season  of  1849-50.  That  Heiberg,  who  objected  to  Hoedt's 
comparative^  innocent  cutting  of  Hamlet,  should  have  allowed  it,  passes 
comiprchension.  For  all  that  is  left  of  Shakespeare's  play  when  Sille  Beyer 
is  through  with  it,  is  the  general  outline  of  the  action,  some  of  the  names, 
and  the  setting.  That  the  exiled  duke  is  called  Robert,  and  the  usurper, 
Philip,  that  Le  Beau  is  omitted  and  his  speeches  given  to  Touchstone, — 

«  Poliliken  November  26,  1892. 
"  10:94.     1893. 

*^  Livel  i  Skoven.    Romaatisk  Lystspii  i  4  Acter.    En  Bearbeidelse  af  V/.  Shakespeares  As  You  Like  It, 
ved  Sille  Beyer.    Kjobenhavn.     1850. 


SHAKESPEARE   ON    THE   DANISH   STAGE  97 

these  are  not  significant  changes.  But  the  adaptor  has  not  been  content 
with  such  trifles.  As  in  Viola,  she  is  obsessed  with  the  notion  that  every- 
thing must  be  expressly  motivated.  Orlando  is  in  love  with  Rosalind  be- 
fore the  play  opens;  Duke  Frederik  (Philip)  goes  out  into  the  Forest  of 
Arden  to  hunt  down  the  exiles,  falls  asleep,  is  attacked  by  a  wild  boar, 
miraculously  saved  by  Orlando,  and,  of  course,  experiences  a  change  of 
heart  and  surrenders  his  usurped  crown.  Some  changes  can  not  be  ac- 
counted for  at  all.  Thus  the  Oliver  of  A 5  Yott  Like  It  is  eliminated  in 
Livet  i  Skoven;  his  name,  office,  and  speeches  are  given — mirahile  dictu — to 
Jaques !  Oliver's  role  as  villain  goes  to  the  servant  Dennis.  Most  startling 
of  all  is  the  effort  to  equalize  the  roles  of  Rosalind  and  Celia.  This  is  done 
by  giving  the  initiative  and  most  of  the  witty  speeches  to  Celia,  and  mak- 
ing Touchstone  the  deus  ex  machina  who  arranges  the  denouement  in  the 
last  act.  For  this  shift  of  emphasis,  however,  there  was  a  very  practi- 
cal reason.  Rosalind  is  tall  and  fair;  Celia  is  "low  and  browner  than  her 
brother."  Now  Fru  Heiberg  was  low  and  dark,  and  must  accordingly, 
play  Celia.  There  was  nothing  for  it,  therefore,  but  to  exalt  Celia  at 
the  expense  of  Rosalind.  It  may  be  that  the  trickery  was  unconscious, 
for  even  Fru  Heiberg  seems  not  to  have  known  that  the  slightest  violence 
had  been  done  to  the  play.^^ 

Nor  were  the  critics  of  1849  much  more  acute.  Berlingske  Tidende" 
praises  Livet  i  Skoven  as  a  thoroughly  successful  theatre-piece,  arranged 
with  fine  knowledge  of  stage  effects.  Something  of  the  beauty  of  the  orig- 
inal may,  indeed,  be  gone,  but  this  is  compensated  for  by  the  gain  in  sim- 
plicity, clearer  motivation,  and,  as  a  result,  the  greater  intelHgibility. 
Even  Meyer  Goldschmidt  praised  it  as  a  skilful  adaptation,  though  he 
was  too  keen  not  to  see  that  a  great  deal  had  been  lost  in  the  process  of 
amputation  and  arrangement.^^ 

In  1874,  however,  when  the  Sille  Beyer  version  was  revived,  the  tone 
of  the  press  reviews  was  greatly  clianged.  Fcsdrelandet*^  says  that  although 
a  reader  of  As  You  Like  It  is  confused  by  the  glowing  colors,  the  many 
episodes,  and  the  interwoven  sub-plots,  two  characters  stand  out — Rosa- 
lind, the  half-girlish  lover,  and  the  melancholy  Jaques.  In  a  stage  version, 
cuttings  and  shifts  are  to  be  expected,  but  we  have  a  right  to  ask  that 
characters  remain  clear  and  distinct.  If  an  adaptor  is  so  blind  that  he  will 
change  Jaques  into  a  sentimental  lover  in  the  middle  of  the  play,  and 
assign  to  the  rather  cold  and  commonplace  Celia  many  of  the  speeches 
that  most  finely  reveal  the  character  of  Rosalind,  then  one  can  compare 
him  only  to  a  woodsman  who  levels'^^the  forest,  leaving  only  clumps  of 

^'■Op.ciL    3:22. 
"  September  3,  1849. 
«!>Nord  og  SydX-M.     1849. 
"  January  26,  1874. 


9S  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

underbnish,  where,  to  be  sure,  one  detects  the  odor  of  flowers,  but  misses 
the  great  trees  that  once  stood  there.  The  best  that  can  be  said  of  Livet 
i  Skovcn  is  that  it  reminds  us  of  Shakespeare.  Dagbladet^^  is  even  more 
severe.  The  reA^ewer  calculates  ironically  how  many  characters  Sille  Beyer 
has  saved.  "First  of  all,  the  wicked  Oliver,  Orlando's  brother,  is  con- 
verted into  an  admirable  fellow,  whose  sins  are  poured  on  the  devoted  head 
of  Duke  Philip,  and  who  is  merged  with  the  melancholy  Jaques.  Second, 
such  of  Le  Beau's  speeches  as  are  needed  are  given  to  Touchstone,  while 
Sir  Oliver  Martext,  Sylvius,  William,  and  certain  other  minor  characters 
are  eliminated.  Of  the  servants,  Dennis  becomes  steward  to  Orlando, 
a  back-biter  and  traitor — a  character  not  found  in  Shakespeare  at  all." 
The  rest,  too,  are  painfully  transformed — Rosalind,  from  a  witty,  lively, 
romantic  girl  in  love  to  a  highly  proper  young  lady;  Corin  from  an  ami- 
able and  interesting  fool  to  an  elephant  in  love,  etc.  The  attempt  to  moti- 
vate the  usurping  duke's  change  of  heart,  the  writer  calls  "crude  and 
mxechanical."  Berlingske  Tidende°^  remarks  that  the  result  of  the  revamp- 
ing is  a  thinness  and  uncertainty  of  characterization  which  makes  it  impos- 
sible to  follow  the  characters  at  all.  They  are  one  thing  at  one  moment, 
quite  another  the  next. 

Yet  this  odd  caricature  reached  the  comparatively  high  total  of  forty 
performances  between  the  premier  in  1847  and  the  collapse  in  1874,  after 
which  the  national  theatre  abandoned  it.  In  May,  1913,  Dagmartheatret 
brought  out  Wildenvej^'s  adaptation  of  As  You  Like  It^"^  with  Johanne 
Dybwad  herself  as  Rosalind.  It  scored  in  Copenhagen  quite  as  decided 
a  hit  a^  it  had  already  scored  in  Christiania.  From  May  8  to  May  31 — 
the  end  of  the  season — it  was  played  twenty-two  times  to  crowded  houses. 

Lixet  i  Skoven  was  followed  in  due  course  by  Kongens  LcBge,  an  adapta- 
tion after  the  usual  Sille  Beyer  pattern  of  All's  Well  That  Ends  Well.^^ 
This  metamorphosis  is  not  quite  so  complete  as  that  of  As  You  Like  It, 
but  it  is  exceedingly  characteristic.  Froken  Beyer's  chief  aim  seems 
to  have  been  to  preserve  Helena's  maiden  modesty.  She  is  changed  from 
a  rather  robust  Elizabethan  to  a  sentimental  love-lorn  lass  in  the  first 
three  acts,  and  to  a  fascinating  country  girl  who  wins  Bertram  by  her 
own  charms,  in  the  last  two.  Every  precaution  has  been  taken  to  pro- 
tect the  virgin  reserve  of  the  heroine.  Thus  it  is  Parolles,  not  Helena, 
who  suggests  following  Bertram  to  the  court,  and  it  is  the  king  who,  quite 
as  a  stroke  of  genius,  fixes  her  reward  for  curing  him  of  his  illness.    This, 

*"  Same  date. 

w  Same  date. 

'2  See  Shakespeare  in  Norway.  Publications  of  the  Society  for  the  Advancement  of  Scandinavian 
•Study  4:136  £E. 

"  Kongens  Lcege.  Romantisk  Lystspil  i  5  Acter.  Efter  W.  Shakespeares  All's  Well  That  Ends  Well. 
Bearbeidet  af  S.  Beyer.    Kjobenhavn.     1850. 


SHAKESPEARE   ON   THE   DANISH  STAGE  99 

of  course,  is  not  Shakespeare's  Helena,  but  a  young  lady  of  the  upper  mid- 
dle class  of  Sille  Beyer's  Copenhagen. 

Morgenposten^^  reviewed  the  production  favorably,  but  Fcsdrelandet,^^ 
the  organ  of  what  Overskou  and  Fru  Heiberg  called  the  "Anti-Heiberg 
cHque,"  handled  it  severely.  The  reviewer  remarks,  very  justly,  that  this 
is  not  Shakespeare,  but  a  new  play,  in  which  the  heroine  has  been  converted 
into  a  love-sick  girl  who  is  one  thing  in  the  first  half  of  the  play,  and 
quite  another  in  the  second.  Liter airt  Maanedsskrift°^  thinks  that  Kon- 
gens  LcBge  is  pretty  dilute  stuff — a  mild  whiskey  sling  with  generous  por- 
tions of  sugar  and  water.  Overskou,  of  course,  attributes  the  unfavorable 
criticism  to  Heiberg's  enemies,  and  records  as  a  matter  of  fact  that  the 
adaptation  was  received  with  great  applause.  The  statement  is  confirmed 
in  a  measure  by  the  press,  and  quite  decisively  by  the  theatre  records, 
for  it  was  performed  fourteen  times  in  its  first  season — an  unusual  record 
in  those  days — and  remained  popular  for  more  than  a  decade.  Up  to  May 
21,  1863,  when  it  was  played  for  the  last  time,  it  had  been  given  forty- 
five  times. 

Lovhud  og  LovbriAd,^''  an  adaptation,  as  fatuous  as  the  others  from 
Sille  Beyer's  hand,  of  Love's  Labour's  Lost,  was  put  on  the  boards  early 
in  the  season  of  1853-54  (September  13),  but  met  with  a  cool  reception. 
Even  Overskou  can  not  claim  more  than  that  it  escaped  positive  failure, 
in  spite  of  Fru  Heiberg's  admirable  interpretation  of  the  princess,  Michael 
Wiehe's  of  the  king,  and  Rosenkilde's  delicious  Don  Armado.^^ 

Berlingske  Tidende,^^  nevertheless,  says  that  the  "Bearbeidelse" 
has  been  made  with  skill  and  tact,  and  results  in  an  admirable  play.  It  is 
not  so  well  satisfied  with  Froken  Beyer's  poetic  style,  which  sinks  fre- 
quently to  banal  triviality.  Literairt  Maanedsskrijt,^^  on  the  other  hand, 
criticised  the  play  as  an  egregious  display  of  bad  taste.  "A  few  fine  bits 
of  characterization — the  only  suggestions  of  Shakespeare's  esprit — and 
a  few  piquant  situations,  sustain  a  body  puffed  up  with  unhealthy  cor- 
pulence. The  dialogue  is  horrible  throughout — saturated  with  a  lyricism 
which  can  only  be  described  as  in  wretched  taste."  That  this  kind  of  stuff 
has  been  praised  in  some  portion  of  the  public  press,  the  reviewer  explains 
by  saying  that  the  pubhc  may  be  so  overwhelmed  by  spurious  beauties 
that  in  the  end  they  make  an  impression  through  sheer  force  of  numbers. 

"  September  26,  1850. 
'5  September  27,  1850. 
M  1  (October  1850-ApriI,  1851). 

"  Lovhud  og  Lovbriid.    Lystspil  i  4  Acter.    En  Bearbeidelse  af  W.  Shakespeare's  Love's  Labour's  Lost  ved 
Sille  Beyer.    Kjobenhavn.    1853. 
"O^.  cit.  6:178. 
'»  September  17,  1853. 
»o  October,  1853. 


100  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

To  this  attack  "E.  S."  replied  in  Kjdhenhavnsposien}^  He  blames  Adolph 
Hertz  for  making  charges  without  sustaining  them.  And  then  he  misses 
the  point  by  assuming  that  Hertz  had  attacked  Lovers  Labour's  Lost. 
"But  this  play  is  one  of  the  most  difficvilt  of  Shakespeare's  to  transplant, 
since  so  much  is  necessarily  lost  in  the  process.  The  adaptation,  there- 
fore, must  be  judged  in  the  Hght  of  this  difficulty,  and  its  fitness  to  be 
performed  by  the  opportunities  it  gives  to  the  actors."  Hertz  answered 
"Criticus  E.  S.,"  as  he  called  him,  in  Literairt  Maanedsskrijt  for  No- 
vember of  the  same  year.®^  jje  dismisses  "E.  S.'s"  ^ieiense  oi  Love' s  Labour' s 
Lost  with  the  curt  remark  that  he  is  concerned  with  Sille  Beyer's  play, 
not  with  Shakespeare's.  He  admits  that  an  adaptor  must  have  liberty 
to  make  necessary  changes,  but  to  alter  as  Sille  Beyer  has  done,  by  elim- 
inating the  page,  the  curate,  and  the  schoolmaster,  is  to  make  a  new  play. 
As  evidence  of  his  statement  that  the  play  is  "gjennemsivet  af  en  3'derlig 
smaglos  Lyrik,"  he  might  offer  much,  but  contents  himself  with  the  fol- 
lowing pearl  of  price : 

I  hver  en  Taare  praeget  er  et  Billed — 

Thi  uafbrudt  belyst  af  Elskov's  Lue, 

Har  Phantasiens  Pensel  frem  det  stillet — 

Dog  for  dit  Savn  [Savnet  af  dig  ]  min  Glasde  skal  f ordunkle ! 

Drag  Ringen  om  din  Arm  dens  hvide  Bue, 

Da  ser  jeg  Lykken's  Maal  i  Haabet  funkle. 

Now,  he  asks,  what  does  this  mean?  The  plea  that  the  fitness  of  a  play 
must  be  judged  by  the  opportunities  it  affords  to  the  staff  of  the  theatre, 
is,  of  course,  not  sound,  for  either  one  is  an  artist  or  one  is  not,  and  pre- 
sumably a  true  artist  can  do  as  well  in  a  good  play  as  in  a  bad  one. 

Lovbud  og  Lovbrud  was  withdrawn  after  six  only  moderately  well 
attended  performances. 

One  might  suppose  that  the  Royal  Theatre  wotdd  by  this  time  have 
been  surfeited  with  Froken  Sille  Beyer's  adaptations.  But  not  quite. 
When,  on  September  1,  1859,  Much  Ado  about  Nothing  was  played,  it 
was  in  a  version  of  the  familiar  sort  under  the  title  KjcBrlighed  paa  Vilds- 
porP  FcBdr eland et^^  insists  that  it  would  have  been  the  part  of  wisdom 
to  write  an  entirely  new  play  on  one  of  the  plots  of  Much  Ado,  rather 
than  mxirder  both  and  call  the  result  Shakespeare.  Morgenposten^^  says 
that  the  first  performance  was  successful,  but  complains  of  the  undue 
prominence  which  the  cutting  gives  to  the  Dogberry-Verges  episodes. 
Overskou^^  records  that  this  last  effort  of  Sille  Beyer's  was  an  unquali- 

61  October  27,  1853. 

M  P.  45. 

"  Kjarlighed  paa  Vildspor  has  never  been  published. 

M  September  5,  1859. 

M  September  5,  1859. 

•«  Op.  cit.     Review  of  season  1859-60. 


SHAKESPEARE   ON    THE   DANISH  STAGE  101 

fied  success,  borne  largely  by  Nielsen's  Leonato,  Wiehe's  Benedict,  and 
Phister's  Dogberry.  It  achieved  the  distinctly  creditable  total  of  nine 
performances  in  the  season  of  1859-60.  In  the  following  season  (1860-61) 
it  was  played  only  twice,  but  six  times  in  the  season  1861-62.  It  was 
then  withdrawn  permanently.  In  1880,  however,  Much  Ado  was  revived 
in  a  new  stage  version  by  H.  P.  Hoist.    ' 

The  final  word  on  Froken  Beyer  and  her  crimes  against  Shakespeare 
was  written  by  Georg  Brandes  in  1868  on  the  occasion  of  a  performance 
of  Viola.'' 

"Most  people,"  says  one  of  Tieck's  characters  apropos  of  Shakespeare's  Twelfth 
Night,  "are  too  feeble  to  know  the  faith  and  humility  necessary  to  an  understanding 
of  a  piece  of  genuine  literature."  "You  are  right  in  using  the  word  feeble,"  answers 
his  interlocutor,  "for  genuine  humility  depends  upon  strength."  We  need  not  seek 
far  for  an  application  of  these  words.  If  a  foreigner,  an  Englishman  or  a  German, 
were  to  learn  that  we  play  Shakespeare's  comedies  on  our  stage  in  a  series  of 
wretched  and  garbled  manglings,  he  might  be  disposed  to  believe  that  we  Danes 
owed  these  adaptations  to  some  coarse  fellow  who,  in  his  brutality,  without  fear 
and  without  shame,  had  laid  hands  on  the  anointed  of  the  muses;  and  he  would 
doubtless  be  startled  to  learn  that  a  modest  little  old  lady  had  ventured  on  such  a 
deed.  But  Tieck  is  right;  imbecility  has  even  less  confidence  in  great  souls  than  has 
arrogance  and  coarseness.  The  good  old  lady  went  about  her  work  with  the  best 
of  intentions.  First  of  all,  she  divided  Shakespeare's  play  into  two  parts,  of  which 
she  rejected  one,  then  tinkered  a  little  with  the  characters  of  the  other.  "By  the 
azure  of  my  stockings,"  she  declared,  "I'll  adapt  these  personages  to  modern  dramatic 
requirements."  And  then  she  brought  out  a  whole  sack  of  fig  leaves,  and  wherever 
Shakespeare  had  left  the  nude,  she  laid  a  fig  leaf.  She  dressed  up  his  nude  figures; 
she  made  a  few  slight  changes  and  alterations  in  them,  and  in  her  innocence  she 
never  suspected  that  the  trifle  she  had  taken  away  was  the  tip  of  their  noses. 
Her  old-maid  nerves  could  not  endure  frank  burlesque,  and  her  dilute  mentality 
could  not  comprehend  what  Malvolio  had  to  do  with  the  duke  and  Viola.  The 
preface  to  her  adaptation  is  commended  to  all  lovers  of  the  naive.  "Of  the  double 
plot,"  she  writes,  "...  I  have  been  attracted  more  by  the  erotic-romantic,  with 
its  appurtenant  comic  characters,  than  by  the  Malvolio  intrigue,  however  much  I 
admire  its  force  and  its  telling  satire.  It  may  easily  be  omitted,  since  it  is  without 
essential  connection  with  the  love  story,  and  it  may  provide  the  material  for  another 
comedy,  if  anyone  should  care  to  use  it."  How  generous!  The  old  lady  portions 
out  Shakespeare's  effects.  She  did  not  know  what  she  was  about.  She  had  it  on 
Heiberg's  authority  that  what  she  did  was  very  good.  We  know,  of  course,  that 
Shakespeare  lay  beyond  Heiberg's  pale.  He  was  too  exclusively  an  admirer  of  Goethe 
to  be  able  to  share  Goethe's  boundless  admiration  for  the  English  poet.  He  was  too 
romance  [romansk]  in  his  sympathies  and  training,  too  moderate  in  his  passions, 
ever  to  feel  the  divine  shudder  which  the  French  call  "ie  frisson  de  Shakespeare." 
Assured  by  Heiberg,  Froken  Beyer  applied  a  foreign  standard  to  the  romantic  works 
of  EngUsh  genius,  and  the  apparent  duality  of  the  action  seemed  to  her  a  violation 
of  the  rules.  But  even  from  her  own  point  of  view  it  is  difficult  to  defend  what  she 
has  done.  When  anything  is  so  colorful,  so  amusing,  so  perfect  as  that  which  she 
has  omitted,  who  would  not  like  to  see  it  within  the  time  demanded  by  En  Sondag 


"  Illuslreret  Tidende  9:no.  45.    Reprinted  in  Kriliker  og  Portrailer  pp.  70  (I. 


102  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

paa  Amager,  and  who  would  miss  it  for  the  sake  of  a  rule?  If  the  scenes  are  super- 
fluous, then  how  essential,  as  the  proverb  has  it,  is  the  superfluous!  And  if  their 
presence  in  the  play  does  violate  the  rules — what  of  it?  Would  any  people  sacrifice 
a  victory  because  it  had  been  won  in  defiance  of  the  rules  of  war,  or  a  hero  because 
he  was  born  out  of  wedlock? 

Sille  Beyer  passed,  but  there  was  still  H.  P.  Hoist.  As  early  as  1864 
the  theatre  had  planned  to  bring  out  his  adaptation  of  A  Winter's  Tale 
in  the  German  acting  version  by  Dingelstedt.®^  For  one  reason  or  another, 
however,  the  production  was  postponed  till  the  opening  of  the  season 
1868-69.  One  is  glad  to  say  that  it  met  with  a  chilly  reception.  Over- 
skou  saj^s  that  Dingelstedt  and  Hoist,  seconded  by  Flotow's  music,  de- 
stroyed the  idyllic  atmosphere  of  the  original,  and  attempted  in  vain  to 
substitute  for  it  the  pomp  and  circumstance  of  the  masque.  This  crit- 
icism is  thoroughly  right,  and  in  different  waj^s  it  is  repeated  b}^  the  press — 
FcBdrelandet,^^  Berlingske  Tidende,''^  and  DagbladetJ^ 

In  general  it  may  be  said  that  Hoist's  version  is  simply  a  translation 
into  Danish  of  Dingelstedt's.  It  foUows  the  German  with  only  trifling 
variations.  Mechanically  the  two  are  identical — four  acts  with  ten  scene- 
shifts.  Hoist  has  even  followed  Dingelstedt's  scene  division,  and  has  omit- 
ted only  one  scene  (D.  IV,  7) — that  in  which  the  shepherd  and  his  son 
lord  it  over  Autolycus.  The  dramatis  personae  are  identical  in  the  two 
versions:  the  shepherd  and  his  son  are  given  names — Tityrus  and  Mopsus 
respectivel}'';  the  two  shepherdesses  are  merged  in  one,  Mopsa;  and  the 
lords  who  have  speaking  parts  are  eliminated,  their  speeches,  so  far  as  they 
are  retained,  being  assigned  to  Cleomenes  and  Dion.  This  latter  arrange- 
ment is  made  possible  by  sending  not  Cleomenes  and  Dion,  but  a  high 
priest  of  Apollo,  to  Delphi. 

Three  principles  lie  at  the  bottom  of  the  Holst-Dingelstedt  version. 

First,  Dingelstedt  has  aimed  to  reduce  the  number  of  scene-shifts 
to  secure  continmty  of  action.  Thus  I,  1;  III,  1;  and  III,  3  are  cut  out, 
and  the  last  replaced  by  a  new  scene  in  which  Antigonus,  who  has  been 
ordered  simply  to  carry  off  Perdita  to  a  desert  place,  appears  in  a  wild 
of  Sicily,  not  Bohemia,  and  then  suddenl}'  declares  that  he  will  take  her 
to  Arcadia,  which,  in  Dingelstedt  replaces  the  Bohemia  of  Shakespeare. 
A  long  time  afterguards  we  learn  incidentally  that  Antigonus  has  been 
killed  by  a  bear.  By  this  maneuvering  we  are  spared  an  excursion  to  the 
coast  of  Bohemia  (Arcadia). 

Second,  Dingelstedt  has  undoubtedly  sought  to  make  the  chain  of 
causation  more  obvious  and  specific.     In  Shakespeare  we  are  surprised 

•9  El  Vintereventyr.    Romantisk  Skuespil  i  4  Acter.    Bearbeidet  after  Shakespeares  The  Winter's  Tale 
og  Dingelstedt's  Ein  Wintermarchen  af  H.  P.  Hoist.    Kjobenhavn.     1868. 
"  September  5,  1868. 
'0  September  4,  1868. 
n  September  4,  1868. 


SHAKESPEARE   ON    THE   DANISH  STAGE  103 

at  the  senseless  jealousy  of  Leontes.  In  the  German  version  we  are  prepared 
for  it,  mainly  by  stage  directions,  but  also  by  some  slight  alterations  in  the 
text.    The  purpose  is  evident  from  the  first  piece  of  business  in  the  play: 

Leontes  [indent  er,  seiner  Unruhe  nicht  mehr  Herr  .    .    .    ] 
and  further,  after  Hermione's  speech, 

Ihr  fasst  ihn  auch  zn  kalt. 

[Leontes  zuckt  zusamnien\ 

When  Leontes  and  Polyxenes  talk  about  their  children,  Leontes  remarks 
maliciously  to  Polyxenes  and  Hermione: 

Dasselbe  Amt  hat  dicser  Schalk  bei  mir, 
Deswegen  bleibe  ich  mit  ihm.  Ihr  habt 
Wohl  bessere  Unterhaltung. 

In  like  manner,  Polyxenes  suspects  at  once  that  his  son  is  in  love  with  Per- 
dita.  In  the  pastoral  scene,  where,  in  disguise,  he  talks  with  her  of  the 
grafted  flowers,  a  stage  direction  reads, 

Polyxenes:  Doch  die  Natur  entartet,  wenn  sie  nicht 
Gezuchtet  und  veredelt  wird  durch  Kunst. 
[Sie  {i.e.,  Perdita)  forschend  anblickend] 

Finally,  to  explain  the  activity  of  Autolycus  in  the  denouement,  Dingel- 
stedt  makes  him  the  runaway  Fool  of  Florizel. 

In  the  third  place,  as  I  have  already  indicated,  the  adaptors  make 
a  show  piece  of  it — a  sort  of  gorgeous  masque  at  court.  The  play  opens 
in  the  banqueting  hall  of  the  palace.    The  stage  direction  reads: 

[Schauplaiz — Festhalle  zu  Konigspalaste  in  Syrakus.  Jm  Hintergrunde,  zwischen 
Sdulen  und  erhoht,  das  Banket.  Itn  Vordergrunde  Musiker  und  Tdnzer,  beim  Aufgehen 
des  Vorhangs  rnit  Auffiihrung  eines  Waffentanzes,  unter  Begleitung  von  Blasinstrumenten 
und  Saitenspielen,  beschdftigt.] 

The  trial  is  converted  into  an  elaborate  ceremonial.  The  First  Officer 
of  the  Court  (in  Shakespeare)  becomes  the  Senior  Judge  of  a  bench  of  six. 
Dion  and  Cleomenes  as  messengers  to  Delphi  are  replaced  by  a  priest 
of  Apollo  with  a  numerous  train  of  priests,  acolytes,  and  virgins.  The 
stage  direction  for  their  entrance  will  give  some  notion  of  the  ceremony: 

[Hinter  der  Scene  links,  mdchtige  selfsame  Tone.  Der  Zugder  Pricster  naht  schr  lang- 
sam.  Voraus:  einige  Tempeldiener  mit  Tuba  oder  Horn.  DannKnaben,  Weihrauchgefdsse 
schwingend.  Vier  Priester  A  polios  bekrdnzt.  Zwei  Jungfrauen,  nach  der  Art  Pythia 
gekleidet,  verhiillt,  mit  aufgelostem  Haar,  tragen  zwischen  sich  z«  den  Hiinden  einc  Urne, 
mit  vier  grossen  Siegeln  verschlossen.  Hinter  ihnen  der  Oberpriester.  Vier  Pricster. 
Knaben.  Bei  seinem  Eintritt  stehen  alle  ehrfurchtsvoll  auf,  auch  Leontes  und  Hermione. 
Das  Volk  wirft  sich  zum  Teil  nieder.] 

This  ambitious  piece,  which  savors  a  good  deal  of  some  English  and 
American  show  productions  of  Shakespeare,  survived  only  five  perform- 
ances.    Of  it,  Georg  Brandes  said  in  Illustreret  Tidende:''^ 

"9  (1867-1868),  September.    Reprinted  in  Kritiker  ag  PorlraiUr  pp.  3  ff. 


104  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

To  waste  any  words  on  the  acting  version  would  be  futile.  What  boots  it  to 
complain  of  the  lack  of  respect  we  are  in  the  habit  of  showing  Shakespeare,  when  one 
has  not  the  power  to  stop  that  thinning  out  and  germanizing  of  the  great  Englishman, 
which  apparently  are  deemed  essential  on  our  stage  when  a  cutting  is  to  be  made. 
The  character  who  has  suffered  most  is  Perdita.  When  a  character  is  delineated  in 
such  few  strokes,  every  speech  is  a  treasure.  But  in  the  present  version,  the  atmos- 
phere that  hovered  about  her  words  is  dissipated  and  fled.  Her  speeches  are  cut, 
shortened,  filed  away,  and  the  word  or  two  which  in  such  masterly  fashion  reveals 
her  feelings  at  the  death  of  the  queen,  are  gone.  Only  one  who  takes  a  positive  delight 
in  cutting  up  a  living  body  can  so  mutilate  a  beautiful  thing. 

For  the  rest,  this  version  is  constructed  on  the  same  principle  as  the  others.  Take 
away  the  spirit  of  the  time;  replace  it  by  that  of  a  vapid  no-time.  To  this  may  be 
added  that  the  interpolated  processions  convert  the  drama  into  a  ballet  in  some 
places,  while  in  others  the  deafening  music  turns  it  into  melodrama.  When  one 
sees  this  hodge-podge  of  all  the  arts,  one  realizes  for  the  first  time  with  what  ample 
justification  and  with  what  barren  results  J.  L.  Heiberg  strove  his  whole  life  long  to 
keep  the  form.s  of  art  distinct. 

Early  in  the  season  of  1893-94,  The  Winter's  Tale  was  revived  in  a 
less  pretentious  version  based  on  Lembcke's  translation.  The  comedy 
scenes  were  well  done,  but  the  reviewers  agree  that  the  performance,  in 
the  words  of  Politiken,  lacked  Festivatas — light,  color,  and  the  pulse  of 
youth.    It  was  too  much  like  a  "command"  performance  at  court. '^^ 

To  H.  P.  Hoist  the  Danish  stage  owes  also  acting  versions  of  A  Mid- 
summer Night's  Dream  and  Much  Ado  about  Nothing.  The  former"*  was 
played  for  the  first  time  on  March  30,  1879.  It  is  in  a  very  tolerable  and 
skilful  cutting,  preser\ang  much  more  accurately  than  either  of  the  others 
not  the  action  merely,  but  the  tone  of  the  original.  The  translation  un- 
doubtedly follows  Oehlenschlasger,  but  not  more  closely  than  Oehlen- 
schlseger  follows  Tieck-Schlegel,  or  Lembcke,  Foersom.  It  is  certainly 
not,  therefore,  as  a  writer  in  Daghladet  implies,  ^^  a  disingenuous  plagiarism. 
At  all  events,  Hoist  had  the  satisfaction,  after  the  disappointing  failure 
of  The  Winter's  Tale,  of  scoring  an  unqualified  success.  The  performance 
was  an  artistic  delight,  says  Berlingske  Tidende;''^  music,  acting,  stage- 
setting — all  combining  to  produce  a  thoroughly  imified  and  organic  whole. 
DagUadeP"^  speaks  of  the  beaut^''  and  fitness  of  Mendelssohn's  music, 
and  warmly  congratulates  the  theatre  on  an  admirable  and  satisfying 
piece  of  work.  It  rather  objects  to  Hoist's  translation,  remarking  that 
there  is  no  excuse  for  using  it  when  Lembcke  is  available. 

A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream  maintained  its  popularity.  With  one 
hundred  and  eighteen  performances  it  heads  the  list  of  Shakespeare  plays. 

"September  20,  21,  1893.     Of.  Berlingske  Tidende  September  21,  1893. 

'*  W.    Shakespeare:      En   Skjarsommernalsdrom.      Romantisk   Skuespil    bearbeidet   til    Mendelssohn- 
Bartholdy's  Musik  og  Indrettet  til  Brug  for  det  kongelige  Theater  af  H.  P.  Hoist.    Kjobenhavn.     1879. 
■6  Dagbladel  April  22,  1880. 
"  March  31,  1879. 
"April  1,  1879. 


SHAKESPEARE   ON    THE   DANISH  STAGE  105 

Twelfth  Night,  however,  with  one  hundred  and  seventeen,  is  a  close  second. 
Undoubtedly  this  popularity  was  due  in  great  measure  to  the  genius  of 
Olaf  Poulsen,  of  whose  superb  Bottom  the  town  never  tired.  In  1903, 
moreover,  its  popularity  secured  further  impetus  through  the  appear- 
ance of  Johanne  Dybwad,  from  the  National  Theatre  at  Christiania,  as 
Puck.  Fru  Dybwad  instantly  gained  for  herself  that  unique  place  in  the 
hearts  of  the  playgoers  of  Copenhagen  which  she  had  long  since  won  in 
Norway,  and  which  she  has  never  lost.  Berlingske  Tidende''^  wrote  in  its 
review  of  the  performance  of  September  23,  at  which  Fru  Dybwad  made 
her  debut  before  a  Danish  audience:  "It  may  be  said  without  exagger- 
ation that  we  really  understood  Puck  for  the  first  time  last  night — under- 
stood that  he  is  the  central  figure  of  the  play.  It  were  too  much  to  say 
that  we  had  ever  suspected  it  before.  We  really  saw  the  fantastic  Puck 
who  plaj^s  tricks  all  about  him,  and  who  literally  snaps  and  sparkles  out 
of  pure  joy  in  his  deviltr}'."  And  PoHt-iken,'^^  usually  a  little  super- 
cilious and  hypercritical,  was  equally  enthusiastic:  "Fru  Dybwad  so  com- 
pletely dominated  the  performance  .  .  .  that  even  in  the  scenes  in  which 
Puck  does  not  appear,  the  memory  of  her  sparkling  presence  lingered. 
Thus  a  play  we  have  often  merely  endured  was  given  a  shimmer  of  roman- 
tic lunacy  and  deep  human  wisdom  fused  in  one  .  .  .  and  all  because 
a  little  woman  played  about  on  the  boards  with  gestures  we  had  ne\'-er 
seen  before  .  .  .  There  was  the  jubilation  at  the  theatre  which  one  sees 
only  on  one  of  its  great  nights.  Fru  Dybwad's  genius  won  Copenhagen 
definitively  and  decisively."  In  Tilskueren,^°  Professor  Vilhelm  Andersen 
wrote  a  delightful  and  penetrating  study  of  Fru  Dybwad's  art.  "It  was 
not  art,  or,  rather,  it  was  more  than  art,  it  was  a  bit  of  mythology.  One 
saw  a  creature  of  nature;  the  player  before  the  play,  with  all  the  possi- 
bilities of  his  art  latent  within  him.  Song  and  dance  and  acting  in  one 
and  the  same  person— a  creature  without  sex,  a  heartless  thing,  whose 
delight  it  was  to  toy  with  hearts  .  .  .  in  short,  art  itself  in  its  beginnings." 
Finally,  in  1910,  the  exquisite  comedy  was  played  by  actors  from 
the  Royal  Theatre  in  Copenhagen's  wonderful  open-air  theatre  in  Dyre- 
haven.  Here  under  the  old  beeches,  in  the  mingled  moonlight  and  twi- 
light of  a  northern  night— one  can  not  conceive  of  a  setting  lovelier  or  more 
appropriate.  Dr.  Maurice  F.  Egan,  who  reviewed  it  for  Theatret,^^  said 
truly:  "Such  a  performance  as  this  is  conceivable  only  in  a  country  in 
which  there  is  a  high  civilization  combined  with  a  love  of  natiu-c  and  an 
intimate  sense  of  its  shifting  moods." 

"  September  24,  1903. 

'«  September  24,  1903. 

8»  Pp.  48011.      1909. 

"9  (1909-1910):137.     Mr.  Egan  was  American  minister  to  Denmark  from  1907  to  1918. 


106  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

In  April,  1880,  the  theatre  brought  out  Hoist's  version  of  Much  Ado, 
Stor  Staahei  for  Ingenting,^'^  to  replace  Sille  Beyer's  impossible  Kjoer- 
lighcd  paa  Vildspor.  This  is  based  frankly  on  Oechelhauser's  German 
adaptation,  Viel  Ldrmen  wn  Nichts.  The  departures  are  trifling.  The 
translation,  however,  is  a  brisk  colloquial  rendering  of  the  English  original 
which  goes  admirably  in  the  repartee  between  Benedict  and  Beatrice, 
and  in  the  low  comed}''  scenes,  but  which  distinctly  jars  when  one  meets 
it  in  the  arraignment  of  Hero.  The  new  cutting  met  with  but  mediocre 
success.  Certainly  there  is  no  enthusiasm  about  the  press  reviews,  although 
the  actors  receive -credit  for  good  work,  and  the  theatre  for  an  adequate 
staging.  Dagbladet^  again  takes  occasion  to  remind  the  authorities  that 
there  is  a  standard  Danish  translation  of  Shakespeare,  and  insists  that 
stage  versions  should  be  based  upon  it.  Stor  Staahei  for  Ingenting  was 
given  six  times  in  April  and  May,  1880,  and  five  times  in  September  and 
October  of  the  same  year.    It  was  then  permanently  withdrawn. 

In  the  meantime,  while  these  adaptations  of  H.  P.  Hoist  held  the 
boards,  the  Royal  Theatre  had  added  two  other  of  Shakespeare's  plays 
to  the  repertoire — Cymheline^^  in  a  translation  and  "Bearbeidelse"  by 
Julius  Martensen,  and  Henry  IV  in  a  version  practically  identical  with 
that  performed  in  Christiania  in  Bjomson's  time.^^ 

Martensen's  Cymheline  is  important  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  first  of 
the  many  and  varied  adaptations  to  be  made  with  a  clear  knowledge 
of  the  Elizabethan  stage  and  the  limitations  which  it  imposed  upon  the 
playwright.  Most  stage  versions,  as  Martensen  points  out  in  the  essay 
appended  to  his  own,^^  have  been  made  quite  arbitrarily,  and  are  as  a  result, 
inartistic  and  unsatisfactory.  It  is  as  though  one  were  to  translate  a  for- 
eign classic  without  knowing  the  language  in  which  it  is  written!  If, 
therefore,  one  knows  the  stage  conditions  which  a  play  of  Shakespeare's 
had  to  satisfy,  it  is  possible  that  one  can  remove  from  it  the  purely  acci- 
dental and  ephemeral  features  without  injiiry  to  substance  or  atmosphere, 
and  so  adapt  it  intelligently  to  the  technical  demands  of  our  own  theatre. 

The  stage  of  Shakespeare,  as  he  reminds  us,  was  quite  unlike  the 
modem  picture  stage  with  its  proscenium  arch,  its  ctutain,  and  its  imi- 
tative scenery.  In  consequence,  there  were  no  scene  shifts  and  no  regular 
pauses.     The  performance  was  to  all  intents  and  purposes  continuous. 

'2  William  Shakespeare.  Stor  Staahei  for  Ingenting.  Romantisk  Lystspil  i  5  Acter.  Oversat  af  H.  P. 
Hoist  og  Indrettet  til  Theaterbrug  efter  Wilh.  Oechelhauser's  Viel  Larmen  urn  Nichts  (1878).  Kjobenhavn. 
1880. 

M  April  22,  1880. 

Cf.  also  Berlingske  Tidende  April  21,  1880. 
'*  Cymbeline.     Eventyrligt  Skuespil  af  Shakespeare,  bearbeidet  for  den  danske  Scene.     Med  et  Tillaeg 
om  de  shakespearske  Skuespil  og  det  moderne  Theater.    Kjobenhavn.     1871. 
'•  Cf.    Shakespeare  in  Norway  p.  189. 
*  Om  de  shakespeareske  Skuespil,  etc.    See  note  84. 


SHAKESPEARE   ON   THE   DANISH  STAGE  107 

This  is  the  fundamental  peculiarity  to  bear  in  mind.  An  Elizabethan 
play  is  made  up,  from  the  modern  point  of  view,  of  one  act  with  many 
scenes.  How  is  such  a  play  to  be  performed  on  a  present  day  stage? 
Martensen  has  small  patience  with  the  "romantic"  protest  against  tamper- 
ing with  the  text  of  the  plays.  He  has  as  little  patience  with  the  alter- 
native— to  give  them  upon  a  specially  designed  Elizabethan  stage.  The 
stage  of  Elizabeth  is  dead;  we  have  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  theatre.  And  this  we  must  do  not  by  recldess  and 
arbitrary  cutting,  but  by  a  discreet  removal  of  features  which  modem 
stagecraft  renders  superfluous.  He  then  proceeds  to  a  critical  examination 
of  his  adaptation  of  Cymheline  with  a  view  to  showing  what  elements  are 
obsolete  and  unnecessary,  and  how  they  have  been  removed.  The  explan- 
ation is  so  long  that  I  can  give  only  its  basic  features.  A  few  scenes  widely 
separated  in  the  original  have  been  brought  together  to  avoid  unneces- 
sary scene-shifts;  long  explanatory  speeches  have  been  cut.  For  instance, 
Act  I,  1  is  omitted,  and  the  material  facts  communicated  incidentally 
in  later  scenes.  And  finally,  what  Martensen  calls  "intermezzo  scenes," 
i.e.,  scenes  which  do  not  advance  the  action,  the  sole  purpose  of  which  is 
to  give  notice  of  shifts  in  time  or  place,  or  both,  have  been  deleted,  neces- 
sary information  which  they  contain  being  given  indirectly  in  other  ways. 
Such  "intermezzo  scenes"  are  II,  1;  III,  1  (which  is  fused  with  III,  5); 
III,  7;  IV,  1.  The  discovery  of  these  scenes  seems  to  me  of  real  impor- 
tance, and  deserving  of  more  attention  than  has  apparently  been  given 
to  it. 

At  the  close  of  the  essay  Martensen  reinforces  his  argument  by  certain 
suggestions  for  stage  versions  of  Macbeth  and  The  Merchant  of  Venice. 
He  would  end  Act  I  of  Macbeth  with  scene  6;  scene  7  may  be  fused  with 
scene  5.  Act  II  should  close  with  the  flight  of  the  princes;  scene  2  is  a  pure 
intermezzo  scene  to  allow  sufficient  time  to  elapse  between  Macbeth's 
election  and  his  coronation.  On  the  Elizabethan  stage,  where  the  action 
went  on  uno  tenore,  such  a  filler  was  necessary;  on  our  own  it  may  well 
be  omitted,  since  all  that  we  need  to  know  we  learn  from  Banquo's  so- 
liloquy at  the  opening  of  Act  III. 

As  to  The  Merchant  of  Venice,  he  holds  that  the  common  criticism 
of  Act  V  as  inorganic,  could  have  no  validity  at  the  time  the  play  was 
written.  The  unbroken  progress  of  the  action  would  effectually  conceal 
any  break  between  what  we  call  Act  IV  and  Act  V.  The  same  clTect 
of  continuity  can  be  secured  on  the  modern  stage  by  a  division  into  three 
acts.  The  third  act  would  then  begin  in  the  court  and  end  in  Portia's 
garden.  Indeed,  some  such  arrangement  has  been  used  with  great  suc- 
cess at  the  Burgtheater  in  Vienna.  "This  play  is  one  of  those  which  re- 
quire a  thorough-going  adaptation    [Bearbcidelse],   and  which  can  not 


108  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

be  performed  in  a  mere  cutting  [forkortet  Literaturoversaettelse],  without 
reminding  us  of  the  old  maxim,  "summum  jus,  simima  injuria." 

Cyrnheline  was  played  for  the  first  time  at  the  Royal  Theatre  on  Oc- 
tober 4,  1871,  with  decided  success,  being  given  no  less  than  nineteen  times 
the  first  season.  The  press,  however,  is  hardly  more  than  mildly  approv- 
ing. Fcrdrelandet^''  remarks  that  Cyrnheline  presents  unusual  difficulties 
to  theatregoers  of  our  day.  It  is  frankly  a  romantic  play,  with  none  of 
that  brilliant  dialogue  and  those  revealing  glimpses  of  life  which  one  so 
often  finds  in  Shakespeare.  Savte  for  the  closing  scene,  there  is  hardly 
a  dramatic  episode  in  it,  and  even  here  the  supra-natural  is  dominant. 
The  result  to  a  casual  reader  and  spectator  is  stark  confusion.  Beneath 
this  romantic  waywardness,  however,  lies  penetrating  characterization — 
of  the  loyal  and  lovely  Imogen,  of  Posthumus,  lachimo,  and  of  Cloten, 
sordid  and  earthly  in  all  his  desires  and  appetites.  The  reviewer  finds 
Martensen's  adaptation  on  the  whole  excellent.  The  acting  was  uni- 
formly good;  the  staging  magnificent.  Berlingske  Tidende^^  thinks  that 
the  conventions  of  a  Shakespearean  romance  are  an  effective  barrier  to 
real  enjoymeiit  by  a  modem  audience — the  sudden  and  violent  shifts  in 
time  and  place,  the  improbable  wager  between  Posthumus  and  lachimo, 
and  lachimo's  trick.  The  play  is  one  which  necessitates  the  laying  aside 
of  our  critical  prepossessions  and  giving  ourselves  up  to  a  fairy  tale.  And 
we  are  not  accustomed  to  do  this.  Hence  the  tempered  approval  with  which 
it  was  received.  The  reviewer  feels  that  the  cutting  was  too  severe,  and 
robbed  the  play  of  much  of  its  Shakespearean  quality.  But  the  acting  was 
good,  and  the  setting  extraordinarily  beautiful. 

No  sooner  had  the  Royal  Theatre  brought  Cyrnheline  on  the  boards, 
than  Lembcke  sued  it  for  improper  use  of  his  translation.  Martensen, 
of  course,  was  cited  as  co-defendant.  Lembcke  charged  that  Marten- 
sen  had  taken  over  bodily  more  than  five  hundred  lines,  that  he  had  changed 
others  only  slightl}^  that  his  translation  was  ill-concealed  plagiarism. ^^ 
To  this  Martensen  replied,^"  first,  that  of  the  five  hundred  lines  in  ques- 
tion, many  are  radically  different  from.  Lembcke's;  second,  a  consider- 
able number  of  the  verses  can  be  translated  in  only  one  way  if  the  trans- 
lator is  to  be  reasonably  faithful  to  the  original;  third,  still  other  verses 
must  be  translated  in  only  one  way  by  everyone  who  has  the  slightest 
feeling  for  Danish.  Martensen  also  makes  much  in  his  reply  of  the  cor- 
respondences  between   Lembcke's   translation   and   Hagberg's    Swedish. 

"No.  233.     1871. 

83  October  5,  1871.     No.  237. 

3'  Til  nermere  Oplysning  om  TlieateroverscBltelsen  af  Cymbeline.     Af  Edvard  Lembcke.     Kjobenhavn. 
1S72. 

*"  Ilr.  Lembcke  og  hans  Eiendomsrei.     I  Anlednittg  af  Processen  om  Cymbeline.     Af  Julius   Martensen. 
Kjobenhavn.     1872. 


SHAKESPEARE   ON    THE   DANISH  STAGE  109 

There  can,  of  course,  be  no  doubt  that  Martensen  has  been  mark- 
edly influenced  by  Lembcke.  There  can  be  even  less  doubt,  however, 
that  the  resemblances  do  not  constitute  plagiarism.  If  they  do,  then 
Lembcke  certainly  plagiarized  Foersom,  Wulff,  and  Hagberg.  It  is  ob\dous 
that  when  an  earlier  translation  of  a  foreign  original  exists,  later  translations 
are  certain  to  be  influenced  by  it,  so  that  resemblances  between  the  two  will 
be  found.  The  number  of  these  correspondences  and  their  closeness  will 
be  greatly  increased  when  the  two  translators  are  contemporaries.  This 
was  substantially  the  opinion  of  the  coiu-t  in  its  decision  acquitting  the 
director  of  the  theatre,  Conferentsraad  Linde,  and  dismissing  the  charges.^'^ 

Cymbeline  was  played  forty-three  times,  from  October  4,  1871  to  June  6, 
1888. 

As  in  Norway,  so  in  Denmark,  the  history  of  Henry  IV  is  the  history 
of  the  Falstaff  scenes.  The  rest  hardly  mattered.  Some  of  those  from 
Part  I  were  given  by  Lindgren  at  a  private  benefit  performance  on  April 
6,  1816,  but  the  real  credit  of  bringing  Falstaff  on  the  Danish  stage  belongs 
to  Kristian  Mantzius.  In  1872  he  brought  out  at  the  Casino  Prinds  Hen- 
rik  og  Falstaff,  a  more  or  less  coherent  arrangement  of  the  appropriate 
scenes  from  Parts  I  and  II,  and  scored,  as  the  critics  say,  a  conspicuous 
personal  success  as  Falstaff. ^^ 

Six  years  later  (September  23,  1877)  he  carried  his  Falstaff  to  the  Royal 
Theatre  in  a  new,  more  ambitious  adaptation,  Kong  Henrik  den  Fjerde. 
The  new  cutting  resembles  somewhat  Bjornson's  of  1865:  the  first  two 
acts  of  Part  I  are  retained,  though  much  shortened;  of  Act  III,  the  first  long 
scene  is  omitted ;  Acts  IV  and  V  are  combined  to  make  the  new  Act  IV  by 
tacking  Act  V  directly  on  to  IV,  2 ;  the  fifth  act  is  made  up  of  the  tavern 
scene  (II,  3)  and  the  death  scene  (IV,  4)  from  Part  II.  Both  F<zdrelandct^^ 
and  Dagbladet^^  call  attention  to  the  violence  done  to  Shakespeare  by  this 
cutting,  and  the  latter  suggests  that  the  play  might  be  appropriately 
called  Prinds  Henrik.  Nevertheless  this  condensed  Henry  IV  was  a  huge 
success.  Mantzius  was  a  brilliant  Falstaff,  as  he  had  proved  six  years 
before  at  the  Casino,  and  this  time  he  had  the  support  of  Emil  Poulsen's 
Prince  Hal.  To  see  one  such  scene  as  that  at  the  Boar's  Head  Tavern 
where  the  prince  dravv^s  the  fat  knight  from  one  outrageous  lie  to  another 
was,  says  Dagbladet,  "worth  volumes  of  comment."  This  version  was 
played  eleven  times  in  the  season  of  1877-78,  and  six  times  in  that  of  1880- 
81.  In  the  meantime,  September,  1878,  Mantzius  gave  the  Falstaff  scenes 
of  Part  I,  Act  II  once  more  at  the  Casino.    He  had  had  to  sacrifice  the 

"  Decision  of  the  court  in  Ugeskrifl  for  RctsvcEsen,  pp.  525  ff.     1873.    The  decision  was  handed  down 
January  27,  1873,  not,  as  Overskou  has  it,  January  21. 

"See  Berlingske  Tidende  May  24,  1872;  Fadrelandel  same  date;  and  Dagbladet  May  25. 

M  September  25,  1877. 

"  September  25,  1877.    And  Berlingske  Tidende  same  date. 


no  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

magnificent  support  which  had  been  his  at  the  larger  theatre,  particularly 
was  the  absence  of  Eniil  Poulsen  conspicuous,  so  that  his  Falstaff  was  not 
quite  the  superb  character  of  the  year  before.  None  the  less  it  was  a  fine 
achievement.  Another  version  of  the  two  parts  was  played  successfully 
at  Dagmariheatret  in  January,  1913,  giving  to  this  private  theatre  the 
unique  distinction  of  two  Shakespearean  plays  in  one  season. 

In  1852,  as  we  have  seen,  Hoedt  had  tried  in  vain  to  prevail  upon 
Heiberg  to  put  on  Richard  III.  The  only  result  of  his  efforts  was  the 
notorious  piece  of  criticism  about  Melpomene's  dagger  and  the  butcher 
knife. ^*  Not  till  half  a  century  had  gone  did  the  theatre,  at  the  instance 
of  Dr.  Karl  Mantzius,  venture  to  add  it  to  the  repertoire.  But  if  the  delay 
had  been  long,  the  manner  of  production  offered  some  compensations, 
for  Mantzius  brought  it  out  on  an  elaborately  contrived  "Shakespeare 
stage."  The  experiment,  however,  was  only  a  doubtful  success.  Vilhelm 
Osterberg  in  Berlingske  Tidende^^  warmly  approved  of  it.  He  hoped  that 
it  would  make  it  possible  to  put  on  an  Elizabethan  play  without  cutting 
it  to  ribbons.  Politiken^s^''  reviewer  took  the  opposite  position.  He  writes 
that  so  far  as  he  could  see  the  only  effect  of  the  "Shakespeare  stage"  was 
to  remind  the  spectators  that  they  were  in  a  theatre,  for  the  illusion  was 
constantl}'-  being  broken  by  the  manipulation  of  the  back  curtains  in  full 
view  of  the  audience. 

Richard  III  was  given  seventeen  times  during  the  season.  The  per- 
formance as  a  whole  was  not  distinguished,  and  the  new  staging  soon 
lest  its  novelty,  but  Dr.  Mantzius  gave  a  finished  interpretation  of  Richard, 
of  his  person  and  bitterness  and  tragic  destiny.  Novelty  and  finish,  how- 
ever, can  not  keep  a  play  on  the  boards ;  and  Richard  III  passed  unregretted, 
Shakespeare  stage  and  all.  The  two  remaining  Shakespearean  productions, 
Othello  and  Julius  Caesar,  were  staged  in  the  conventional  way. 

Othello  came  to  the  national  theatre  by  way  of  the  minor  theatres 
of  Copenhagen.  In  May,  1885  and  again  a  year  later,  the  Italian  actor 
Rossi  produced  it  at  Folketheatret,  and  despite  unattractive  siurround- 
ings,  inadequate  staging,  and  a  foreign  language,  scored  one  of  the  tri- 
umphs of  Danish  stage  history.^^  In  1890  Riis-Knudson  produced  it  in 
a  superb  setting  at  Dagmartheatret.  The  critics  commended  his  energy 
and  enterprise  and  Martinius  Nielsen's  excellent  Othello,  but  for  the  rest 
their  praise  is  extremely  reserved.  Berlingske  Tidende^^  compares  the 
production  unfavorably  with  Rossi's,  and  Politiken^^^  comments  dryly: 

»5  See  p.  88. 
»«  November  10,  1900. 
9?  November  10,  1900. 
»8  PolUiken  May  29.  1885. 

Berlingske  Tidende  May  28,  29,  1885. 
«'  April  8,  1890. 
"»  April  9,  1  SCO. 


SHAKESPEARE  ON  THE  DANISH  STAGE  111 

"Der  skal  Kugle  til  en  Tronder,  og  der  skal  stor  Kunst  til  en  klassisk 
Tragedie."  Nevertheless  Othello  was  given  twenty-seven  times  in  the  next 
two  seasons,  a  very  fair  record  for  a  play  which  could  not  possibly  be  a 
popular  favorite. 

Not  till  January,  1904  did  Othello  find  a  place  in  the  repertoire  of  the 
Royal  Theatre.  Its  history  there  is  undistinguished.  Politiken^°^  says 
of  the  premier  that  it  was  no  better  than  the  production  at  Dagmartheatret, 
and  hardly  to  be  compared  with  Rossi's  twenty  years  earHer.  Zangen- 
berg's  Othello  was  fair;  Mantzius'  lago,  elegant  and  disappointing.  In 
his  review  of  the  season  1903-4  in  Tilskueren,^^^  Vilhelm  Andersen  calls 
Othello  a  failure.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  he  says,  that  the  annual 
return  of  Shakespeare  to  the  Royal  Theatre  has  become  a  kind  of  state 
occasion,  at  which  actors  and  audience  feel  about  equally  foolish.  Before 
Shakespeare  can  really  count,  there  must  be  a  radical  change  of  heart. 

It  is  a  curious  coincidence  that  Julius  Caesar,  the  first  of  Shakespeare's 
plays  to  be  offered  to  the  theatre — ^if  we  except  Riber's  Lear — should  be 
the  last  to  be  performed.  Submitted  by  Foersom  in  1803,  it  was  finally  pro- 
duced by  Mantzius  in  1911  with  all  the  splendor  characteristic  of  any 
production  with  which  he  had  to  do.  Mantzius  himself  was  a  good  Antony, 
particularly  in  the  great  scene  in  the  Forum,  and  Emil  Poulsen,  a  satis- 
iym.g  Caesar.    The  rest  is  silence. 

Oehlenschleeger's  Amleth  does  not  figure  in  this  history,  since  it  is 
based  directly  on  Saxo,  nor  Shakespeare  som  Elsker,  a  translation  by  N.  T. 
Bruun  of  Duval's  Shakespeare  amoureux,  ou  la  piece  a  Vetude.  But  there 
are  in  Danish  dramatic  literature,  three  plays  which  draw  upon  Shake- 
spearean material,  Werner  Abrahamson's  DeLystige  Koner  i  Hillerod}'^^  Nico- 
lai  Sotoft's  Hamlet  i  England,^^^  and  E.  J.  Boye's  William  Shakespeare. ^°'^ 

Abrahamson's  play,  as  its  title  indicates,  is  a  free  adaptation  of  The 
Merry  Wives  of  Windsor  to  Danish  characters  and  a  Danish  setting.  The 
translation,  indeed,  is  often  very  close,  and  the  plot  is  but  little  changed. 
Only  the  setting,  Hillerod,  the  names  of  the  characters  (except  Falstafl), 
and  here  and  there  an  allusion  to  history  and  folk-lore,  are  Danish.  It  is 
not  a  little  curious  to  follow  the  adventures  of  Sir  John  in  the  north  of 
Sjaclland  w4th  retired  Danish  notables  and  their  wives,  gulled  by  elves 
and  hobgoblins  and  the  creatures  of  northern  fairy  tales.  It  is  amusing, 
but  it  is  neither  Danish  nor  Shakespearean.'^* 

101  January  11,  1904.    Cf.  Berlingske  Tidende  same  date. 
i»'  P.  497.     1904. 

iM  De  Lystige  Koncr  i  HillerSd.    En  Omarbcidelse  og  Eftcrligning  af  Shakcspeares  The  Merry  Wives  of 
Windsor.    Skuespil  i  5  Acter  af  Verner  Abrahamson.    Kiobenhavn.     1815. 
i»«  Hesterus  7 :289  ff.     1822. 

105  William  Shakespeare.    Romantisk  Skuespil  af  A.  E.  Boyc.    Kjobcnhavn,  1826. 
**  Abrahamson's  play  was  never  performed. 


112  MARTIN  B.  RUUD 

Setoffs  Hamlet  i  England  is  a  slight  one-act  fragment  in  Rahbek's 
Hesperus  (1822).  The  fact  of  Hamlet's  stay  in  England,  and  some  of  the 
details  of  this,  the  author  took  from  Saxo,  but  for  the  rest,  his  plot  derives 
from  Shakespeare's  play.  Hamlet  arrives  in  England,  where  he  is  received 
b}''  Horatio  and  representatives  of  the  king.  To  Horatio  he  tells  the  story 
of  all  that  has  happened  in  Denmark — the  death  of  his  father,  his  mother's 
marriage,  his  slaying  of  the  king  and  Polonius,  and  the  death  of  Ophelia. 
He  has  come  to  England  to  win  the  hand  of  the  Princess  Elma.  At  this 
moment  the  spirit  of  Ophelia  rises  from  the  river  Thames  in  the  back- 
ground, and  with  her  a  mermaid,  to  whom  Ophelia  then  confides  her 
story — the  manner  of  her  death  and  her  undying  love  for  Hamlet.  When 
they  have  again  disappeared.  King  Edmund  and  his  daughter  enter, 
and  Hamlet  presses  his  suit.  He  conceals  nothing,  tells  of  his  love  for  Ophe- 
Ha  and  of  the  miirders  he  has  committed.  He  is  none  the  less  enthusi- 
astically accepted.  In  the  meantime,  Ophelia  has  once  more  risen  to  the 
surface  and  has  overheard  her  lover's  plea.  As  Hamlet  turns  to  go,  he 
catches  sight  of  her  black  robe,  and  is  sorely  troubled.  He  feels  that  he 
is  pursued,  and  that  he  will  come  to  some  evil  end.  Presumably  Eima's 
rejected  lover,  Ireland,  was  to  have  something  to  do  with  the  catastrophe, 
but  at  this  point  the  fragment  ends. 

Sotoft  made  some  attempt  to  reproduce  Shakespeare's  characters, 
but  without  much  success.  Ophelia  is  still  the  frail,  devoted  maiden; 
Horatio,  the  steady  friend,  and  Hamlet  philosophizes  in  soliloquies  which 
are  forcible-feeble  imitations  of  Shakespeare.  The  fragment  is  utterly 
undramatic,  and  too  sentimental  to  be  even  readable. 

One  evening  in  March,  1826,  Boye's  romantic  play  on  the  early  life 
of  Shakespeare  was  performed  for  the  first  time.  Thanks  to  Nielsen's 
admirable  rendition  of  the  title-r61e  and  Kiihlau's  music,  it  scored  an  imme- 
diate success,  and  was  performed  fairly  regularly  (thirty  performances) 
for  a  nimiber  of  3'ears  thereafter.  William  Shakespeare  contains  some  highly 
rhetorical  speeches,  a  few  lyrics  in  imitation  of  Shakespeare's,  which, 
tricked  out  with  graceful  music,  were  doubtless  attractive,  and  a  number 
of  pretty  fairy  tableaux  more  or  less  reminiscent  of  A  Midsummer  NighVs 
Dream.  One  can  well  imagine  that  it  was  a  creditable  theatre-piece,  not 
altogether  undeserving  of  the  poprdarity  it  won  and  held  so  long.  But 
intrinsically  it  is  utterly  without  merit — a  commonplace  plot  glossed 
over  with  ornate  rhetoric  and  sugary  lyricism. 

The  fable  is  insufferably  tiresome.  Shakespeare  is  represented  as  work- 
ing rather  ineffectively  at  his  father's  loom,  and  torn  in  spirit  between 
his  love  for  Anne  Hathaway  and  his  devotion  to  the  muses.  We  see  him 
bent  over  Holinshed,  composing  the  great  scenes  of  King  Lear,  or  declaim- 
ing speeches  from  Richard  II,  which,  it  seems,  was  written  in  Stratford. 
Burbage  and  Greene  appear;  Burbage  is  enthusiastic  over  Shakespeare's 


SHAKESPEARE   ON   THE  DANISH  STAGE  113 

play,  promises  to  produce  it,  and  unites  with  Greene  in  urging  the  young 
dramatist  to  try  his  luck  in  London.  But  Shakespeare  refuses.  His  loy^ 
alty  to  Anne  Hathaway  compels  him  to  finish  his  test  pieces  for  admission 
to  the  guild  of  journeyman-weavers,  that  he  may  settle  down  to  marry 
his  betrothed  and  assist  his  impoverished  father.  The  scene  in  which 
the  rustic  weavers  are  bribed  by  wine  to  pass  young  Shakespeare's  journey- 
man piece  contains  somie  good  comedy  in  imitation  of  the  Shallow-Slender 
scenes  of  Henry  IV.  After  many  difficulties,  in  the  complication  of  which 
the  whole  apocryphal  story  of  Shakespeare's  youth  is  dragged  in,  he  finally 
goes  into  the  forest  to  wait  for  Anne  Hathaway.  Oberon  and  Titania 
appear,  and  plot  together.  They  decide  to  sing  him  to  sleep  and  in  his 
slumbers  let  him  see  the  famous  characters  of  his  future  plays.  Shake- 
speare sleeps,  and  then  in  elaborate  tableaux,  the  great  scenes  of  Macbeth 
pass  before  him.  Just  as  Anne  comes  to  the  rendezvous,  he  awakes,  and 
exclaims  in  the  usual  bombastic  fashion: 

Teg  har  seet  et  Syn.     Dit  skal  ei  folge  mig 

Til  Nod  og  Kummer. — Paa  sin  Throne  sad 

Elizabeth,  den  hoie  Vestalinde 

I  Herskerkaaben,  og  med  Demant  om 

Sin  Lok;  og  Taarer  klarere  end  Perlen 

I  Smykket,  lonned  William  Shakespeare's  Digt. 

And  embracing  each  other,  they  set  off  for  London.  In  a  supplementary 
note  to  the  printed  text  of  the  play,  the  author  acknowledges  that  these 
tableaux  proved  impracticable  on  the  stage,  so  that  another  device  had  to 
be  substituted  for  them.  While  Shakespeare  sleeps,  Thalia,  Apollo,  and 
Melpomene  meet,  and  in  long  descriptive  speeches  pass  in  review  the 
heroes  of  the  tragedies,  e.g. : 

Saa  kommer  Macbeth,  staalklaadt,  stierk  af  Mod, 
Med  Kongekaaben,  rod  af  Kongcblod, 
Saa  Romeo  med  Julia  i  Arm,  etc.,  etc. 

One  can  imagine  that  Nielsen  with  his  noble  stage  presence  and  superb 
declamation  might  do  something  to  dignify  the  Shakespeare  of  the  play; 
but  it  must  have  been  hard  work.  I  should  not  like  to  think  that  tlic  poet 
in  those  early  days  in  Stratford  was  the  mooning  imbecile  of  Boyc's  play. 
At  that  he  has  some  individuality;  Anne  Hathaway,  Gilbert  Shakespeare, 
Sir  Thomas  Lucv,  and  the  rest,  are  animate  sticks. 


APPENDIX 

REGISTER   OF    SHAKESPEAREAN    PERFORMANCES 
IN    DENMARK 

I.  The  Royal  Theatre 
This  record  has  been  compiled  from  the  following  sources: 

Edvard  Agerholm,  Det  Kongclige  Theaters  Dagbog.     Kobenhavn.     Aargang  1910- 

11,  Aargang  1911-12. 
Arthur  Aumont,  Dansk  Theater  Aarbog  fra  og  med  Ssesonen  1889-1890  til  og  med 

Saesonen  1896-1897.     Kobenhavn. 
Arthur  Aumont  og  Edgar  Collin,  Det  Danske  National  Theater.     En  Statistisk 

Fremstilling  af  det  Kongelige  Theaters  Historie  fra  Skuepladsens  Aabning  paa 

Kongens  Nytorv  18  Dec.  1748  til  Udgangen  af  Saesonen  1888-1889.     I  5  Afsnit. 

3  vols.     Kobenhavn.      1896-97. 
Arthur  Aumont,  in  Politiken,  Sunday,  May  11,  1913,  and  Monday,  May  12,  1913. 

Det  kongelige  Theaters  Aarsberetninger  fra  og  med  Sassonen   1897-1898  til  og 

med  Saesonen  1912-1913. 
Th.  Overskou,  Den  Danske  Skueplads,  1722-1849.    5  vols.     Kobenhavn.     1854-64. 
Den  Danske  Skueplads.  1849-1874.     2  vols.     Kobenhavn.     1876. 

1.  Cymbeline.     Translated  by  Julius  Martensen.     October  4,   1871  to  January  10, 

1888.    Acts  I-III,  June  6,  1888.     Performed  forty-three  times. 

2.  Hamlet.     In  Foersoin's  translation,  May  12,   1813  to  March  27,   1888,  fifty-five 

times.  In  Lembcke's  translation,  April  3,  1910  to  February  6,  1911,  twenty- 
five  times.    Total  number  of  performances,  eighty. 

3.  Kongens  Lcege  {All's  Well  That  Ends  Well).    Adapted  for  the  Danish  stage  by  Sille 

Beyer.  September  22,  1850  to  May  21,  1863.  Total  number  of  performances, 
forty-five. 

4.  Kong  Henrik  den  Fjerde      Some  of  the  Falstaff  scenes  in  Foersom's  translation 

given  by  Lindgren  at  a  dramatic  recital,  April  6,  1816.  Performed  in  Lembcke's 
translation,  September  22,  1877  to  January  15,  1881.  Total  number  of  per- 
formances, seventeen. 

5.  Kong  Lear.     In  Foersom's  translation,  September  2,  1816  to  November  8,  1859, 

twenty-three  times.  In  Lembcke's  translation,  November  22,  1901  to  April  11, 
1902,  the  last  performance  on  the  "Shakespeare  stage,"  thirteen  times.  Total 
number  of  performances,  thirty-six. 

6.  Kjcerlighed  Paa   Vildspor   {Much  Ado   about   Nothing).     Adapted  for  the  Danish 

stage  by  Sille  Beyer.  September  1,  1859  to  March  3,  1863,  seventeen  times. 
In  H.  P.  Hoist's  adaptation,  Stor  Slaahei  for  higenting,  based  on  Oechelhauser's 
Viel  Ldrmen  um  Nichts,  from  April  20,  1880  to  October  8,  1880,  eleven  times. 
Total  number  of  performances,  twenty-eight. 

7.  Kjobmanden  i  Venedig.    In  Rahbek  and  A.  E.  Boye's  translation,  January  18,  1828 

to  February  11,  1828,  four  times.  In  Lembcke's  translation,  April  10,  1867  to 
December  9,  1913,  seventy-three  times.  On  November  4,  1899,  Act  IV  was 
played  at  the  farewell  performance  for  Emil  Poulsen.  Total  number  of  per- 
formances, seventy-eight. 

8.  Livet  i  Skoven  {As  Yon  Like  It).     Adapted  for  the  Danish  stage  by  Sille  Beyer. 

September  1,  1849  to  February  25,  1875,  forty  times. 

9.  Lovbud  og  Lovhrud   {Love's  Labour's  Lost).      Adapted  for  the    Danish  stage  by 


APPENDIX  115 

Sille  Beyer.     September  18,  1853  to  November  17,  1853,  six  times. 

10.  Macbeth.     Translated  by  Foersom  from  Schiller's  stage  version.     November  15, 

1817  to  February  11,  1860,  thirty-three  times.  In  Lembcke's  translation,  Janu- 
ary 21,  1894  to  October  4,  1908,  fourteen  times.  Total  number  of  performances, 
forty-seven. 

11.  De  Mimtre  Koner  i  Windsor    {The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor).    Translated  by  A.  E. 

Boye.     March  9,  12,  and  20,  1830,  three  times. 

12.  Romeo  og  Julie.  In  A.  E.  Boye's  adaptation  of  Foersom's  translation,  September 
2,  1828  to  April  16,  1852,  twenty-two  times.  In  Lembcke's  translation,  April  8, 
1874  to  April  22,  1874,  six  times.     Total  number  of  performances,  twenty-eight. 

13.  En  Skjcersommernatsdrdm  {A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream).    In  Hoist's  adaptation, 

March  30,  1879  to  March  22,  1883,  fifty-six  times.  In  Lembcke's  translation, 
February  26,  1899  to  October  5,  1904,  sixty-two  times.  Total  number  of  per- 
formances, one  hundred  and  eighteen. 

14.  Et  Vintereventyr  {The  Winter's  Tale).  In  Hoist's  translation  of  Dingelstedt's 
stage  version,  Ein  Wintermdrchen,  September  2,  1868  to  September  25,  1868, 
five  times.  In  Lembcke's  translation,  September  20,  1893  to  November  9,  1903, 
twenty-four  times.    Total  number  of  performances,  twenty-nine. 

15.  Viola  [Twelfth  Night).  Adapted  for  the  Danish  stage  by  Sille  Beyer.  September 
20,  1847  to  December  28,  1868,  fifty-two  times.  Under  the  title  Hellig  Tre 
Kongers  Aften  eller  Hvad  Man  Vil,  in  Lembcke's  translation,  November  25,  1892 
to  March  29,  1911,  sixty-five  times.  Total  number  of  performances,  one  hundred 
and  seventeen. 

16.  Richard  III.    November  9,  1900  to  April  20    1901,  eighteen  times. 

17.  Othello.    January  10,  1904  to  February  9,  1904,  four  times. 

18.  Julius  Caesar.    November  30,  1911  to  April  24,  1912,  sixteen  times. 

Summary. — In  the  period  under  review  (1811-1913)  there  have  been  played  at 
the  Royal  Theatre  eighteen  of  Shakespeare's  plays  with  a  total  of  seven  hundred  and 
forty  performances. 

II.     The  Private  Theatre  of  Copenhagen 

The  following  record  is  based  on  Lauritz  Svendsen,  De  Kobenhavnske  Privat- 
teatres  Repertoire  {1847-1^06),  Kobenhavn,  1907,  and  the  placards  of  the  several 
theatres. 

1.  En  Arrig  Kvinde  {The  Taming  of  the  Shreiv).     Translation  and  stage  version  by 

Anton  Smith  and  Erik  Bogh.  Casino,  October  5,  1856  to  January  16,  1860, 
twenty-one  times. 

2.  En  Arrig   Trold   {The   Taming  of  the  Shrew).     In  Lembcke's  translation.     After 

the  fifteenth  performance  in  a  new  version  called  Trold  kan  Tccmnies.  Dagmar- 
theatret,  September  1,  1891  to  May  31,  1904,  sixty-five  times.  At  Casmo,  Feb- 
ruary 11  to  March  20,  1904,  fifteen  times. 

3.  Ihin  Skal  Tcemmes  {The  Taming  of  the  Shrew).    Translation  and  stage  version  by 

Anton  Smith  and  H.  P.  Hoist.  Casino,  November  3,  1862  to  May  27.  1863, 
seven  times. 

4.  Prince  Henrik  og   Falstaff  (Based  on  i  and  2  Henry  IV).     Casino,  May  28  to 

August  1,  1872,  eight  times. 

5.  Falstaff ske  Scener  (FalstafT  scenes  from  i  and  2  Henry  IV).    Casino,  September  18 

to  21,  1878,  three  times. 

6.  De  Lystige  Koner  i  Windsor  {The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor).    In  Lembcke's  trans- 

lation. Cutting  by  P.  A.  Rosenberg.  Folketheatret,  December  26,  1899  to 
January  9,  1900,  fourteen  times. 


116  APPENDIX 

7.  Oihello.  Folketheatret,  Maj',  1885  and  May,  1886  by  the  Italian  actor,  Rossi, 
four  times.  Dagmartheatret,  January  6,  1900  to  December  3,  1907,  twenty-seven 
times.    Total  number  of  performances,  31. 

S.  Romeo  and  Juliet.  Dagmartheatret,  January  6,  1900  to  December  3,  1907,  twenty- 
six  times. 

9.  Kong  Lear.     Folketheatret,  May  25,  1886. 

10.  Hamlet.     Dagmartheatret,  October  28,  1902  to  January  6,  1903,  nineteen  time 

11.  Kong  Henrik  den    Fjerde.      Dagmartheatret,   January   7   to  January   27,    191.: 
fourteen  times. 

12.  Livet  i  Skoven  (As  Yon  Like  It).  Originally  translated  and  adapted  for  National - 
theatret,  Christiania,  by  Herman  Wildenvey.  Dagmartheatret,  May  8,  1913 
to  May  31,  1913,  twenty-two  times. 

Summary. — The  private  theatres  of  Copenhagen  have  produced  eight  plays  of 
Shakespeare,  in-  thirteen  separate  versions,  with  a  total  of  two  hundred  forty-seven 
performances. 


STUDIES   IN    ENGINEERING 

1.  George  Alfred  Maney,  Secondary  Stresses  and  Other  Problems  in  Rigid 
Frames:  A  New  Method  of  Solution.     1915.     $0.25. 

2.  Charles  Franklin  Shoop,  An  Investigation  of  the  Concrete  Road-Making 
Properties  of  Minnesota  Stone  and  Gravel.     1915.     $0.25. 

3.  Franklin  R.  McMillan,  Shrinkage  and  Time  Effects  in  Reinforced  Con- 
crete.    1915.     $0.25. 

STUDIES   IN    THE   BIOLOGICAL   SCIENCES 

1.  Herbert  G.  Lampson,  A  Study  on  the  Spread  of  Tuberculosis  in  Families. 
1913.     $0.50. 

2.  Julius  V.  Hofmann,  The  Importance  of  Seed  Characteristics  in  the  Natural 
Reproduction  of  Coniferous  Forests.     1918.     $0.25. 

3.  William  Moore  and  A.  D.  Hirschfelder,  An  Investigation  of  the  Louse 
Problem.     1919.     $0.50. 

STUDIES   IN    LANGUAGE   AND    LITERATURE 

1.  Esther  L.  Swenson,  An  Inquiry  into  the  Composition  and  Structure  of 
Liidtis  Coventriae:  HARDiisi  Craig,  Note  on  the  Home  of  Ludus  Coventriae.  1914. 
$0.50. 

2.  Elmer  Edgar  Stoll,  Othello:  An  Historical  and  Comparative  Study.  1915. 
$0.50. 

3.  Colbert  Searles,  Les  Sentiments  de  I'Academie  Frangaise  sur  le  Cid:  Edition 
of  the  Text,  with  an  Introduction.     1916.     $1.00. 

4.  Paul  Edward  Kretzmann,  The  Liturgical  Element  in  the  Earliest  Forms 
of  the  Medieval  Drama.     1916.     $1.00. 

5.  Arthur  Jerrold  Tieje,  The  Theory  of  Characterization  in  Prose  Fiction 
prior  to  1740.     1916.     $0.75. 

6.  Marie  C.  Lyle,  The  Original  Identity  of  the  York  and  Towneley  Cycles. 

1919.  $0.75. 

7.  Elmer  Edgar  Stoll,  Hamlet:  An  Historical  and  Comparative  Study.  1919. 
$1.00. 

8.  Martin  B.  Ruud,  An  Essay  toward  a  History  of  Shakespeare  in  Denmark. 

1920.  $1.25. 

CURRENT   PROBLEMS 

1.  William  Anderson,  The  Work  of  Public  Service  Commissions.    1913.    $0.15. 

2.  Benjamin  F.  Pittenger,  Rural  Teachers'  Training  Departments  in  Min- 
nesota High  Schools.     1914.     $0.15. 

3.  Gerhard  A.  Gesell,  Minnesota  Public  Utility  Rates.     1914.     $0.25. 

4.  L.  D.  H.  Weld,  Social  and  Economic  Survey  of  a  Community  in  the  Red 
River  Valley.     1915.     $0.25. 

5.  GusTAV  P.  Warber,  Social  and  Economic  Survey  of  a  Community  in 
Northeastern  Minnesota.     1915,     $0.25. 

6.  Joseph  B.  Pike,  Bulletin  for  Teachers  of  Latin.     1915.     $0.25. 

7.  August  C.  Krey,  Bulletin  for  Teachers  of  History.     1915.     $0.25. 

8.  Carl  Schlenker,  Bulletin  for  Teachers  of  German.     1916.     $0.25. 

9.  William  Watts  Folwell,  Economic  Addresses.     1918.     $0.50. 

10.  Margaret  Kent  Beard,  The  Relation  between  Dependency  and  Retarda- 
tion: A  Study  of  1,351  Public  School  Children  Known  to  the  Minneapolis  Associated 
Charities.     1919.     $0.25. 

11.  Thomas  S.  Roberts,  A  Review  of  the  Ornithology  of   Minnesota.     1919. 

$0.25 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


I' I 


50m-l,'63(D4743s8)476 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILIl 


) 


